PRIVATE BUSINESS

Selection

Ordered,
	That Ms Karen Buck be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Joan Ryan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Hill, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Magna Centre (Stirling Prize)

Michael Clapham: If she will make a statement on the award of the Stirling prize for architecture to the Magna centre in Rotherham

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote recently to Chris Wilkinson, architect on Magna, and to Stephen Feber, its chief executive, to congratulate them on winning the Stirling prize. Transforming the redundant Templeborough steelworks into a world-class science adventure centre has been a triumph not just for the architects, but for all those involved. Visitor numbers and earnings for the first six months have exceeded targets and estimates for the first year: that goes to show how the very best buildings contribute to their communities economically, socially and environmentally. I am delighted that the Millennium Commission has helped to facilitate this wonderful project, and I congratulate the Magna team once again.

Michael Clapham: As my hon. Friend said, in addition to receiving the award for architecture, this is a major regeneration initiative which creates a unique opportunity for young people to engage with science. In fact, it is the first UK science centre. However, does he agree that there is a need for the centre to collaborate with local universities, such as Sheffield university, which has a high-calibre science base? That would help attract more science-based industry to south Yorkshire, supporting the information technology industry there. Furthermore, will he ensure that south Yorkshire receives its fair share of lottery moneys, so that towns, such as Barnsley, which want to regenerate their cultural capital, will have the money to do so?

Kim Howells: I am sure that the efforts now being made will address the problem that some areas have not been as fortunate as others in the distribution of moneys, and not before time. Until recent years, no country in the world could rival us in the way in which we locked up much of our intellectual capital in our universities, making it redundant. I am extremely glad that schemes are being encouraged to ensure that our universities reach out into our communities and work to tap the potential of those communities.

Sydney Chapman: In congratulating those responsible for the Magna centre on their brilliant success, does the Minister agree that the Stirling prize and, indeed, other architecture awards have helped to raise public awareness of the need for good quality architecture? Will he encourage that through the setting up of more prizes, and will he also recognise that the introduction of the national lottery has made it possible for many of those projects to leave the drawing board and become a reality? Will he do everything to encourage that trend?

Kim Howells: I shall do everything to encourage it as long as it does not involve additional expenditure for Department.

Community Sport

Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on her targets for encouraging sport in local communities.

Richard Caborn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department is committed to raise significantly year on year the average time spent on sport and physical activities by those aged six to 16. In support of that central objective, we are investing heavily in school sports facilities that will also be available to the wider community. In delivering that programme, we will ensure that school facilities are properly managed for the community as well as for schools. I recognise the problems involved in achieving that, but I am determined that we should use those assets for the wider community, and we shall pursue that.
	I should inform the House that the announcement of a chief executive for Sport England is likely to be made later this week. I hope that the announcement will be made by Sport England. Contrary to some of the press speculation, on which I obviously cannot comment, it would be nice to bring an English missionary back from Australia.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that youth football clubs, such as Roundshaw and District Colts football club, will help the Government to achieve their targets by developing youngsters' skills and boosting their fitness and by involving the local community? Does he further agree that those targets will be much easier to reach if clubs, such as the Roundshaw and District Colts, and better-known clubs, such as Wimbledon football club, respond to the wishes of their local communities as they seek to expand?

Richard Caborn: I cannot comment on the specific cases that have been drawn to the House's attention, but I can say on behalf of football that, through the Football Foundation and the improved corporate governance of football, those involved are, first, seriously considering how to generate indigenous talent in the footballing world and, secondly, taking note of the facilities provided by the football academies that are being set up by a number of the premier and first division clubs. I welcome that, as well as the campaigns that have been run effectively to bring new sports facilities into the community, such as that by Donald Trelford of The Daily Telegraph for sports playing fields. Those campaigns are to be commended, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond to them.

Andy Reed: I understand the need to ensure that young people have access to sports facilities, but does the Minister accept that community and amateur sports clubs offer many people post-16 a lifeline and are worthwhile places in which to partake in athletics? Unfortunately, such clubs are disappearing. Most local sports clubs, such as mine, once had three or four teams, but many of them now run only one or two. Will the Minister use his energy to ensure that more is put back into community and amateur sports clubs? Specifically, has he had discussions with the Chancellor about the consultation on the tax break that I announced—sorry, suggested—in my ten-minute Bill?

Richard Caborn: I am sure that all the authorities will be pleased to have heard my hon. Friend's announcement on what the Chancellor will say, and I am sure that the Chancellor will be waiting to hear what my hon. Friend says.
	On the second question, the answer is, yes, the Chancellor has announced that he is seriously considering relief for sports clubs. That is a matter for the Chancellor, but I have no doubt that he will act on it in the near future. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said about sports clubs. It is important that that part of the sports infrastructure is given due attention. Although weare investing heavily in education facilities—about £750 million through the new opportunities fund—we are clearly doing so with an eye to ensuring that the wider community is involved. We want a system in which every young person—indeed everyone—has access to quality facilities and coaching, so that they can realise their potential. We are determined to put that structure in place in the medium to long term.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that all his fine words are undermined by the fact that a third of primary schools reduced the amount of time for physical education during the past year, as the Select Committee on Health has shown? When the Government allow building on playing fields, such as Foster's field in Sherborne—a policy that has been savagely criticised by the very journalist whom the Minister prayed in aid in an earlier answer—are not all the Minister's fine words completely belied by the real facts?

Richard Caborn: One of the first ministerial jobs that I had when the Labour Government were elected in 1997 was as Minister with responsibility for planning, and one of the figures given to me by the civil servants was that40 playing fields a month were being closed each month when we inherited the Administration from Conservative Members, so we want no lectures from them on investment in sports facilities or playing fields. We have brought that figure down to one and a quarter a month. If they had done what should have been done when they were in power, we would not have been left in the sorry state that we are now in.

Derek Wyatt: We are looking forward to the announcement of £750 million for sport in the United Kingdom, but will that money make provision for the employment of professional ground staff? When cuts are made in a local education budget, the first to go is either the librarian or the ground staff. We have no cricket fields or proper playing fields and, when there is a flood or it is hot, health and safety regulations deem it too dangerous for children to play. No one in the community cares about ground staff, so will my right hon. Friend reflect on that point and tell us whether it will be possible to use the money that will be made available for the employment of ground staff?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend raises an important point relating to the links between schools and the local community. We all know that, on a Saturday afternoon, it is sometimes difficult to get the school caretaker to open changing facilities so that the local football team can use the playing fields. We must consider that issue. Sport England is engaged at the regional level in dialogue with local education authorities and local authorities to ensure that facilities are available for the community as well as for schools.
	I hope that an announcement about the new opportunities fund will be made in the next few months and, when money is awarded for new facilities, one of the conditions will be that we examine the revenue side and try to ensure that the facilities are open for 24 hours a day seven days a week. I cannot guarantee that, but I will ensure that they are open to the community more than they are at present.

BBC Charter

Norman Baker: What criteria she intends to apply when considering renewal of the BBCcharter.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make an announcement on the criteria in due course.

Norman Baker: In considering the criteria that will be applied, will Ministers pay particular attention to the commitment shown by the BBC to news, current affairs and serious programmes? Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding that the BBC's obligation as our primary public service broadcaster to deliver news and current affairs is not met if those programmes are relegated to BBC Choice at 3 o'clock in the morning and that it has an obligation to ensure that they are on BBC 1 during prime time? Will he deplore the moves ofBBC 1 to go down market so that it becomes some sort of tabloid channel?

Kim Howells: The answers to the first three questions are yes, yes and yes. On the point about dumbing down, I am deeply suspicious about politicians who tell broadcasters what they should or should not put on television. Most politicians never watch the thing.
	We must be careful about definitions of dumbing down. I am the world's greatest enemy of soaps—I hate the things—but I have inadvertently watched episodes of "EastEnders" that have dealt with serious subjects in a very adult way, so they have probably served a purpose in that respect. I certainly would not like Whitehall officials, Members of Parliament or, still less, Ministers to tell broadcasters what they can or cannot put on television.

Chris Smith: My hon. Friend will doubtless have been following carefully the proceedings on the Office of Communications Bill in the other place. He will have noticed that it and many outside commentators have been pressing for as much evenhandedness as possible in the regulatory environment between all the public service broadcasters, including the BBC. Will he therefore consider the possibility, as the shape of Ofcom develops through the legislative process, that the final backstop regulatory power in respect of the BBC should rest with Ofcom rather than with the Secretary of State?

Kim Howells: As my right hon. Friend knows from his considerable experience, the Office of Communications Bill is about setting up Ofcom. It is certainly not about content, which will ultimately be decided by the communications Bill that we hope to publish in draft form in the new year. I am sure that, at that point, there will be adequate time and opportunity for debate on these sensitive subjects.

Tourism (Terrorist Attacks)

Mark Francois: If she will make a statement on the effects of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on the promotion of tourism to the UK.

Tessa Jowell: Transatlantic tourism has been badly hit as a result of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Airlines are reporting ticket sales down by between 20 and 30 per cent. on some key transatlantic routes. The impact on the British tourism market is severe, because transatlantic tourists typically spend £6 for every £1 spent by a domestic tourist. The fall in income could reach £2.5 billion this year, but a survey from the British Tourist Authority suggests that there will be a recovery in the second half of next year.
	I have visited New York three times since11 September and have been in close contact with the BTA, its staff and agents of the American tourism industry. I should like to take this opportunity—I hope that the House will join me—to pay tribute to the BTA's staff who are based in New York. They showed courage and commitment in the days following the attack, helping stranded tourists to get home.

Mark Francois: Is the Secretary of State aware that the BTA has estimated a fall in overseas visitor numbers of up to 25 per cent. for the final quarter of this year? Given the pressure that the industry was already under as an after-effect of the foot and mouth crisis, what practical steps are Ministers taking—other than earning air miles—to alleviate the industry's problems?

Tessa Jowell: The tourism industry was hit hard in a multitude of ways by the terrorist attack on 11 September. As the August figures showed a recovery on the previous year as a result of the additional investment in marketing that the Government provided to the BTA, terrorism struck when things were getting better for transatlantic tourism. However, the BTA and all the tourism agencies have worked closely with the Government and are investing £5 million in marketing Britain to destinations in Europe and beyond to attract visitors who want to enjoy the fantastic opportunities that Britain offers.

Barry Gardiner: May I remind my right hon. Friend of one of our more successful tourist venues, the Aldeburgh festival, which took place at the weekend? It is one of our major literary festivals and I am delighted to say that it was absolutely packed out. Will she congratulate all those involved in its organisation, including Michael Laskey and Naomi Jaffa, on producing such a successful event?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to give my wholehearted congratulations to all those involved in the Aldeburgh festival.

David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no historical analogy with the last great disaster in tourism to affect the United Kingdom, which happened after the American bombing of Libya and events in Chernobyl? The recovery then was led by the airline industry. Does she also agree that £5 million expenditure is peanuts? If she does not authorise a massive increase in spending through the devolved Assemblies, her Department and the tourism authorities, the industry will not recover to benefit the UK.

Tessa Jowell: Having had the opportunity in New York to talk to the BTA and American tourism bodies, it is clear that marketing travel to Americans at the moment will not get New Yorkers who do not want to leave home and are afraid of flying on to planes. That is why the BTA's strategy of marketing Britain to other countries that are part of the major market for inbound tourism is right. It welcomed the opportunity to reallocate resources, and I hope that that, coupled with its commitment, will be borne out by an increase in the number of visitors to Britain.

Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend recall in her discussions with the BTA mention of one of its most successful publications linking film production to tourism? Given the increase in tourism at Alnwick castle after "Elizabeth" and in Sheffield after "The Full Monty", and given the success of the Harry Potter film, will she link both industries in the interests of both?

Tessa Jowell: I understand that the BTA has been involved in the development of a promotional film making precisely the link to which my right hon. Friend refers. We have also used football to promote British tourism in addition to the normal attractions of culture and heritage. So, the BTA is looking imaginatively at ways of marketing Britain, and I hope that that will be rewarded with the success that it deserves.

Anne McIntosh: My husband works for an American airline company, so the House will appreciate that I am only too aware of the effects on the promotion of English tourism caused by the tragedies on 11 September.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that tourism numbers were already down before 11 September, in part due to the on-going foot and mouth crisis? The Government like league tables, and I have here one which may interest the Secretary of State. It shows bed occupancy levels in the English regions. She may not be aware that, in July, Yorkshire dropped to 10th in the regional table for bed occupancy, largely due to the on-going foot and mouth crisis. I hear what she says about the role of the BTA, but does she agree that there is an argument for the English Tourism Council being given a clear marketing role to promote tourism in the English regions?

Tessa Jowell: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities on the Front Bench.
	The hon. Lady will be well aware that the figures were down as a result of foot and mouth, but as I said in response to an earlier question, they were recovering, especially in transatlantic travel. Domestically, the picture is patchy. It is clear—in the work that we have been doing with leaders of the tourism industry, there is widespread recognition of this—that although tourism was badly hit by foot and mouth and then by the events of11 September, the industry also faces issues such as variable quality and standards and value for money. We are working closely with the industry to do everything possible to ensure that it emerges stronger from those two crises than it was before foot and mouth first hit.

Millennium Stadium

Paul Flynn: What proposals she has to encourage the use of the Millennium stadium for major UK events.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) should withdraw the remark about air miles made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That statement was quite disgraceful.
	The millennium stadium in Cardiff is an outstanding sporting arena and a fitting home for Welsh rugby union and football. Decisions about the events that are held there lie with the stadium operators and event-holders. Given the popularity of the stadium among fans and event- holders alike, there is no need for anyone, least of all the Government, to become involved in attracting events to it.

Paul Flynn: I am grateful for that reply, but following the great success of events held in the millennium stadium, should not it now be regarded as the natural home of international and national events for England and Wales and as the premier stadium in the British Isles? When my right hon. Friend searches for an alternative to Wembley and Picketts Lock, will he examine the claims of Birmingham, Coventry and every other town in the midlands and in the rest of the United Kingdom? I hope that the process will not be rushed. It should be measured and leisurely because the millennium stable—[Interruption.]—the millennium stadium will be available for decades to come to host such events.

Richard Caborn: I have heard of a multi-purpose stadium, but never one that was a stable as well. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that we have asked the International Amateur Athletics Federation to consider Sheffield for an international athletics stadium. I have been taking advice on some of the activities at Cardiff and my hon. Friend—who, as everyone knows, is an expert on rugby union—tells me that if the Welsh team aspired to the performance that the stadium demands, Wales could be even more successful than it is now.

Tim Yeo: Does the Minister believe that Britain needs a national stadium, and, if so, where should it be?

Richard Caborn: That decision will be made by the Football Association and it is with the FA now. Let me update the hon. Gentleman. I think that he knows that just before the election the FA, which had already received £120 million of lottery money, asked for another£300 million of lottery money. We brought in Patrick Carter to carry out a review; he has been responsible for the Commonwealth games financing, which he reviewed for us, and for Picketts Lock. He has done as we asked and discussions on the Carter review with the FA and Sport England are continuing. I repeat, it is an FA project and the FA takes the lead. The FA and Sport England are currently discussing Patrick Carter's report.

Tim Yeo: The House will know that although Patrick Carter's report has been paid for by the public, it has not yet been seen by the public: it remains a secret document. Is it not now clear that the Picketts Lock fiasco has so damaged Britain's reputation that any chance we had of hosting either the Olympic games or the world cup has gone for the foreseeable future? Despite squandering millions of pounds of public money, the Government's incompetence and their failure to honour undertakings given by Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards will deny British fans the chance to see the world's top athletes perform on British soil. Does the Minister agree that the last-ditch attempt to replace London with his home city as the venue for the world athletics championships was merely a shabby attempt to conceal the damage that the Government have done to our reputation in sporting circles?

Richard Caborn: I remind the House that the issue of Wembley stadium started in 1996 under the Conservative Administration, and it was not resolved under that Administration. As for Picketts Lock, as soon as Sheffield became a potential contender, under the ministerial code I was removed from any decision making. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not implying that I was involved in that decision. Furthermore, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, Patrick Carter's report was put into the public domain at 5 o'clock on the Thursday that the decision was made. Everyone has been able to read it and arrive at their own judgment, and a considerable number of people have told my Department that the right decision was made. It is not in the interests of British sport or the British sports industry for the hon. Gentleman to continue to talk down our very good facilities. Our country probably runs more international sporting events than any other European country.

Digital Television

Chris Bryant: What plans she has to ensure equality of access to digital television.

Kim Howells: In the White paper "A New Future for Communications", the Government have set out tests that must be met before the analogue signal is fully switched to digital. Those conditions will ensure that everyone who currently receives analogue television will have access to digital television. To facilitate the switch to digital, the Government have just published a draft digital action plan.

Chris Bryant: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are deeply resentful of the fact that they get S4C instead of, rather than as well as, Channel 4? They would dearly love to see many of the free to air digital channels that are now available, but partly because they are not aware of the free to air option and partly because they are fearful of taking on extra financial burdens, they are not able to get them. Is it not time that we introduced a strategy to ensure that every household has a digital tuner? Toward that end, will the Government consider giving free, free to air digital tuners to every pensioner and every household that receives a free television licence?

Kim Howells: I take my hon. Friend's point because, of course, I live just down the road from him and have never been able to get Channel 4—good though S4C is, I might add as Minister with responsibility for broadcasting. We will ensure that everyone who can currently get the main public service channels can receive them in digital form. The switch to digital has to be an affordable option, which is the point that my hon. Friend made. I know that there are a great many people in his constituency of the Rhondda who cannot afford expensive digital equipment. As a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment.
	There are parts of the country to which, because of their topography, it will be difficult to get terrestrial digital—the Rhondda is certainly one of them. We have 230 analogue relays in Wales. They are expensive pieces of equipment to replace, but we have to look urgently at how we ensure that everyone who lives in Wales has the opportunity to receive, one way or another, a digital signal.

Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State recently gave a welcome green light to new BBC digital stations. However, is the Minister uncomfortable with the fact that, while the entire British public are paying for them through the licence fee, only between one quarter and one third will actually be able to receive them? Does he believe that the time scale of 2006–2010 is still realistic for the digital switchover, particularly given ITV Digital's current commercial difficulties?
	As the Government stand to make considerable proceeds from selling off the analogue spectrum after switch-off, will they consider using some of that money in advance to sponsor the further spread of digital television? Can they put pressure on retailers to promote the free to air option with the same vigour with which they promote the subscription option? In topographically difficult areas, will they use public money to ensure that areas, not only in Wales but in Lynton, Lynmouth and other deep valleys, get digital television because many of them are not getting analogue pictures at the moment?

Kim Howells: There were a few questions there. We will certainly continue to press the regulatory authorities to ensure that, where possible, we can turn up the juice on transmitters so that we get better quality pictures and a much wider footprint. I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to press on with that timetable. I am as determined now as ever to ensure that the switchover will take place between 2006 and 2010. We have to be a good deal more imaginative and assertive than we have been to ensure that existing broadcasters do much more to publicise the virtues of digital technology.

Anne Begg: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the collapse just a few weeks ago of the telecommunications company Atlantic Telecom, which delivered cable television to a number of my constituents after taking over Aberdeen Cable Services. My constituents therefore arrived home from work one night to discover that they had no television at all, just a message that their service had been withdrawn.
	There is a wider issue. The digital service, including free to view channels, is often provided through platforms for which people pay, whether satellite, Sky or ITV Digital, so there is a danger that consumers may lose access to television for which they have paid. At present, there seems to be no protection in legislation. When the communications Bill is introduced, will my hon. Friend make sure that it provides that kind of protection for the consumer?

Kim Howells: It is important that there is adequate regulation to ensure that that kind of protection is offered. However, I do not think that we need heavy-handed regulation to do that; it ought to be much simpler. Thatis the purpose of the White Paper and the new communications Bill, which, hopefully, will be published in the new year. We need light-touch regulation, which should be clear and transparent to ensure that both the industry and the consumer get a good, consistent service and do not receive unpleasant surprises.

Julian Lewis: The Minister will recall the all-party support for the very effective campaign by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People for subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing on cable and satellite TV. Before the general election, the Government gave a clear commitment and a promise to introduce that. Nothing has been heard since then. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that that promise still stands, and give us an idea of when that admirable and much desired change will come into effect?

Kim Howells: I can certainly repeat that promise. I am meeting various RNID officials. There are some difficult problems, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—problems with the technology, the take-up and the affordability. I want the initiative to be taken forward as quickly as possible. No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that we have tried to raise the threshold generally to help people with disabilities, especially blind people, to overcome those problems when they watch television or listen to the radio. It is important that we take that agenda forward.

Commonwealth Games

Mark Hendrick: What discussions she has held on arrangements for the security of the Commonwealth games in Manchester.

Richard Caborn: Security arrangements for the Commonwealth games are being reviewed, following the events of 11 September. They will be kept under constant review between now and the games. Greater Manchester police are in daily contact with the Commonwealth games organisers, the relevant local authorities, other emergency services and all other relevant parties in respect of security planning for next year's games. Greater Manchester police are confident that all planning is on track and will deliver a safe games for athletes, spectators, VIPs and the residents of the Greater Manchester area.

Mark Hendrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it is important for the games to go ahead, if possible, without terrorist incident—first, because of the obvious economic benefits to Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and secondly, to show the world that the UK, and Britain in particular, is capable of hosting a major world sporting event that requires new stadiums?

Richard Caborn: I have no doubt that that will happen. We will produce a Commonwealth games of which not only Manchester and the north-west, but the UK and the Commonwealth will be proud. I pay tribute to Charles Allen and Francis Done, the chairman and chief executive of Manchester 2002, and their team for the tremendous work that they are doing. Now that they have a robust financial structure, which was put into place on the recommendation of Patrick Carter, we can deal more effectively with issues such as 11 September. As we now have more credibility, more sponsors are coming forward. That shows that the plan undertaken by Patrick Carter and the work done by him are paying dividends in many ways.

Graham Brady: Does the Minister accept that since 11 September the cost of policing the Commonwealth games will be higher than it would have been before, and is likely to be more than £8 million out of the budget of Greater Manchester police? Will he undertake to make representations to the Home Office and his colleagues there to ensure that the people of Greater Manchester do not bear the burden of the cost of that policing? Will he ensure that the Home Office takes on the whole of that cost, to ensure that my constituents and others across Greater Manchester do not suffer from a diminution of police resources?

Richard Caborn: No request has been received by the Department. The hon. Gentleman would not expect meto go into detail about security planning for the Commonwealth games, but from the contingency fund of £25 million that we put into the finances, we have been able to cater adequately for what the police believe would be the worst-case scenario. As regards the knock-on effect on the revenue spend of Greater Manchester police, I have no doubt that if representations were made to the Home Office, they would receive serious consideration.

Paul Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reassurance. In Manchester five years ago, we learned something of the devastation that terrorism brings when an IRA bomb exploded at the heart of our city. Although it is important to take every precaution, will my right hon. Friend join me in emphasising that next summer in Manchester there will be a warm welcome for thousands of competitors and spectators from across the world, and an opportunity for them to enjoy the competition and the friendship that these important Commonwealth games will bring?

Richard Caborn: I hope that that sentiment will be echoed on both sides of the House and in the national press, because it is certainly recognised in the north-west. There has been a tremendous take-up of tickets that are available now, and a lottery for that area will start in the next few days. Some 12,000 people have already volunteered, and people are volunteering at the rate of 200 a week. There is a real appetite for the games' success and I have no doubt that Manchester and the north-west will ensure that, contrary to what the hon. Member for South Suffolk(Mr. Yeo), the shadow spokesman, said—[Interruption.] I am having difficulty in getting his attention. He has just been critical of facilities in the UK and has run down the UK. Now, he cannot even listen and support Manchester in hosting one of the best international events to take place in 2002. His performance at the Dispatch Box is quite disgraceful.

Museums and Galleries Taskforce

Shona McIsaac: What her response is to the findings of the regional museums and galleries taskforce.

Tessa Jowell: I welcome the publication of the report of the regional museums taskforce, which contains a convincing analysis of the problems and opportunities of museums and galleries in the regions. I have asked Lord Evans of Temple Guiting for advice, by the end of the year, on ways in which Resource should begin to implement the report's recommendations on the basis of funds already allocated to it for supporting regional activities.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has it been brought to her attention that the award-winning national fishing heritage centre in Grimsby closed its doors last week for six months because of funding difficulties? I heard the glimmers of hope that she gave in her reply, but that excellent regional museum needs help sooner rather than later.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important to recognise that 2,000 museums and galleries throughout the country are funded in large part by local authorities and in much smaller part by my Department. Lord Evans's report proposes a new relationship between regional centres of excellence and smaller, satellite museums in order to improve their contribution to education, access and social inclusion.I am sure that she will take those messages to her local museum in Cleethorpes.

Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State consider museums that although are not in the national top 12, for which her Department has done a much appreciated deal allowing them some support in return for free admission, are none the less national museums in the first or second division rather than the premiership? In the borough for which she and I share responsibility there is the Design museum, which is unique in the United Kingdom. Is she willing to accept representations on ways in which that tier of national museum could be assisted if it, too, were willing to take the same approach to admission fees?

Tessa Jowell: I recognise the contribution that the Design museum makes to the life not just of Southwark but of London as a whole. However, I would not want to mislead the House by pretending that we are in a position to provide the necessary support to all museums and galleries to enable free entry, as is the case with those that my Department supports directly. At the beginning of next month, we shall see the completion of the programme that was introduced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury(Mr. Smith). I hope that Members on both sides of the House will continue to make representations about the case for improving access to less recognised museums, which are often the focus of local communities and represent their own kind of excellence.

Jim Dobbin: The Commonwealth games will be an important event for my constituency in Greater Manchester. Will the Minister encourage Commonwealth countries to maximise their participation by reassuring them of the safety aspects of the games?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, we—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was not about the Commonwealth games but about museums, so the Minister need not answer.

Gambling Review

John Barrett: What assessment the Government have made of recommendation 70 of the report of the gambling review body on not-for-profit clubs.

Richard Caborn: We have received more than 1,500 representations about the recommendation that jackpot gaming machines should not be allowed in such clubs. We have not yet reached conclusions on this or the other recommendations in the report. However, we shall consider very sympathetically the strong points made to us that recommendation 70 would have a damaging impact on many clubs and the communities they serve.

John Barrett: Does the Minister agree that the way to tackle the concerns about children having access to gaming machines is not in the way proposed, because a number of clubs have membership that is exclusively for the over-18s or can make other provisions?

Richard Caborn: We have to be very careful about such judgments. As I said, I have received more than 1,500 representations from Conservative, Liberal and Labour clubs, as well as from the CIU, Miners Welfare and the Royal British Legion. Many of them cater for families, which we must acknowledge and welcome, however, we must ensure that we take the Budd report's concerns on board and also ensure that children do not have access to jackpot machines. If the Government are clear about that central question, the report's major concern will be answered. Although we have not made a decision, we are mindful that almost £250 million goes into the clubs' financial infrastructure, and to withdraw that would have serious repercussions across many communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

National Audit Office

David Rendel: What resources the Commission has made available to the National Audit Office for the audit of spending by the European Commission in the last 12 months.

Alan Williams: As the Comptroller and Auditor General does not audit the European Commission's operations, under the treaties establishing the European Community, responsibility for the external audit of the European Community revenue and expenditure, including that of the Commission, rests with the European Court of Auditors. However, the CAG audits the expenditure of the money that the United Kingdom receives from the European Community budget that is spent by UK Departments and agencies. The CAG's estimate provides for the resources to discharge its responsibility.

David Rendel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Will he comment on the way in which the appointment of the British member of the European Court of Auditors is carried out? Does he believe that such a person should have considerable experience of audit, probably being a fully trained auditor? Does he also believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have a greater say in that appointment?

Alan Williams: The situation seems to be very in-house, to put it mildly. It is a closed shop for ex-civil servants. There have been three appointments since 1977 and everyone appointed has been an ex-civil servant. The individual who is due—no doubt quite justifiably—to take the fourth appointment next December is also an ex-civil servant.
	It concerns me that there is no formal arrangement or facility for the CAG even to be consulted. The nature of the job is such that it has a near-sinecure status. Once appointed, the individual can be dismissed only by the European Court of Justice, and even then, only at the invitation or request of the Court of Auditors.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Ecclesiastical Stipends

Paul Flynn: What the changes in real terms have been in stipends and other salary payments paid to (a) bishops, (b) parish priests and(c) archbishops since 1986.

Stuart Bell: Between 1986 and 2001, stipends for diocesan bishops, parish priests of incumbent status and the two archbishops have increased on average by 110 per cent., 119 per cent. and 106 per cent. respectively. I am happy to say that parish priests have come off best.

Paul Flynn: That is reassuring news. The definition of a stipend in the Church is that it should allow the priest to live without financial difficulty and be able to maintain his family in a state that cannot be described as poverty or riches. However, the majority of the clergy—75 per cent.—make no investment in a home of their own, which causes difficulties in retirement, and a quarter of them have made applications to charities in the past year. Does that not suggest that the parish priest is a long way from a state of riches but dangerously close to a state of poverty?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that particular point.
	The central stipends authority of the Archbishops Council is looking carefully at clergy stipends. Its criteria are that the stipends should be adequate for clergy to discharge their duties without undue financial anxiety, that there should be flexibility to allow the Church to pay its clergy where they can best be deployed, and that there should be equity, with stipend levels being broadly convergent and not constituting an impediment to clergy mobility.
	My hon. Friend's points will be taken into account carefully in all consultations.

Sydney Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a considerable proportion of the commissioners expenditure goes towards clergy stipends and pensions? If they are to be encouraged to do more, is it not essential for them to receive the maximum return on their assets—within, of course, the code of ethics to which they subscribe?

Stuart Bell: The commissioners must indeed obtain the best possible return on their assets, because one of their responsibilities is to meet the stipends of their clergy.A great deal of time and effort is being put into clergy stipends. A document entitled "Generosity and Sacrifice", which is in the Library, lists a number of benchmarks for clergy to observe in future, and is well worth a read.

Clergy Poverty

Chris Bryant: What plans the commissioners have for dealing with poverty among the clergy.

Stuart Bell: The review group on stipends, to which I just referred, has expressed a number of aspirations, one of which is to introduce an incumbent's stipend guideline equivalent—with housing included—amounting to approximately 80 per cent. of the starting salary of a head teacher of a large primary school.

Chris Bryant: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the Church of England's own report "Generosity and Sacrifice", more than one in 10 clergy say that they struggle to pay bills every year and, indeed, regularly go into debt? As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, many fail to acquire enough money to buy a home to which to retire. Is it not time that, first, Church of England clergy had proper employment rights, and secondly, that the tied cottage concept was abolished?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for widening the issue to encompass employment rights and the tied cottage. As he may know, in addition to their stipends based on a national stipends benchmark of £16,910 from April 2001, clergy of incumbent status receive free accommodation or a housing allowance, and membership of a non-contributory pension scheme. Moreover, their working expenses should be fully reimbursed. I nevertheless congratulate my hon. Friend on having already read "Generosity and Sacrifice".

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Church Commissioners are responsible for dealing with the poverty of clergy, but does he accept that, as a landlord, they are also responsible for dealing with that of their tenants? Will he convey to them the anger, frustration and dissatisfaction caused by the September decision of their assets committee, as a result of which there is less housing for the poor in London? Is that not compatible with a doctrine that states, "We will look after our own if they are clergy, but not if they are tenants"?

Stuart Bell: I expected the hon. Gentleman to widen the question to cover the Octavia estates. I can tell him, however, that the commissioners paid £90.60 million for clergy pensions and a further £11.7 million to offset the cost of contributions payable under the new pension scheme. The Octavia Hill issue is another question for another day, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is part of the Church Commissioners overall responsibility to obtain the best possible return on investments in order to put more money into the cure of souls.

Flooding

Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to ensure the safety of church records and artefacts in those buildings that are susceptible to flooding.

Stuart Bell: Church builders have always been conscious of the need to build in places that do not flood. Church records and artefacts are generally, although regrettably not always, at relatively low risk.

Gordon Prentice: Is that not a complacent reply? We all remember, one year ago, photographs of the Archbishop of York paddling about the cellars of his palace in York in his wellies. Is there not a case for the Government to examine the issue further and perhaps to give the Church of England emergency funding to ensure that our national treasures, such as the bishop's palace in York, are not susceptible to flooding? I do not want to see the palace in York flooded in a few weeks time; that would be just too embarrassing.

Stuart Bell: Whether the Government should help the minster at York is, of course, a matter for the Government and not for the Second Church Estates Commissioner. However, the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 places on individual parishes a duty to ensure that registers and records are not kept in places where there is at least a risk of damage from flooding.

Bishops' Work Load

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the progress of the commissioners deliberations on alleviating the work load ofbishops.

Stuart Bell: A review group has given the view that, on the evidence presented to it, bishops are very hard working, perhaps excessively so; that the pressures on them are increasing; and that they do not have lavish lifestyles. How the hard work and pressure can be alleviated is the subject of on-going consultations.

Michael Fabricant: Those on-going consultations were on-going when I raised this issue before the previous general election. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there was some discussion by the commissioners of the appointment of a third archbishop. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a precedent in Lichfield where, in the seventh century, there was a third archbishop? May I say that if there is going to be a third archbishop, he should be in Lichfield? May I also say that, contrary to the ideas of certain sketchwriters, I am not offering myself for that position?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman might well be aware of the phrase that he who goes in a pope comes out a cardinal. Should there be a third archbishop, the same might be said for the bishop of Lichfield.

Railtrack

Theresa May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the process of consultation and decision taking that led to Railtrack being put into administration.

Stephen Byers: On 2 April 2001, Railtrack asked the Government for help because of its pressing financial difficulties. The Government brought forward £1.5 billion of investment from the period beyond 2006 to the five-year period starting on 1 April 2001. The first instalment of that deal was paid on l October 2001 in full—£337 million.
	At the time of the April agreement, the Government felt that we should make it clear that our role was to support the railway network but that we should not be seen as acting as guarantor of individual companies or their shareholders. We therefore agreed with Railtrack a statement of principles. The first point in the statement states:
	"The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face".
	In May, June and July, Railtrack's position worsened dramatically. On 25 July, at a meeting in my office, the chairman said that the position was far worse than had been thought in April, and that it was clear that, unless extra financial assistance from the Government was provided, on 8 November, when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the critical statement that it was "a going concern." The effect of that would have been disastrous. Immediately I ordered intensive discussions with Railtrack.
	In August, Railtrack's advisers came back to the Department and said simply that there were three options available; restructuring, renationalisation or, as they described it, receivership. Thus it was Railtrack's advisers who first raised the possibility of insolvency if no additional funding was made available by the Government. I immediately asked my officials to investigate the restructuring option, which involved the provision of more funding to Railtrack. Railtrack asked for funding from the Government to cover all its costs, plus a profit and a four-year suspension of regulation. Those were Railtrack's proposals.
	Given the company's demands, we began to prepare for the possibility that we might be unable to provide additional funding and that, as a consequence, Railtrack would be insolvent. As I told the House on 15 October, in order to protect passengers' interests, it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis.
	As part of this contingency planning, draft railway administration orders were drawn up. A draft of the rules was printed by The Stationery Office on 28 September. The rules were made when a copy of that document was signed by me on 6 October to indicate that I concurred in the making of the rules. They came into force on 7 October.
	The allegedly leaked rules, as some have described them, were produced to the court as evidence on 7 October and laid before Parliament on 8 October. They formed part of the bundle of documents placed before the court and have been deposited in the Library of the House.
	As regards the printing of the draft rules on 28 September, I have already made it clear to the House that since Railtrack plc's view was that administration was the likely outcome if the Government refused to provide further funding, I had to consider, on a contingency basis, how, if Railtrack plc were proved to be insolvent, I could ensure an orderly process resulting from administration without disruption of the railways. The drafting of the rules was finalised as part of this contingency exercise and a print of them was obtained from The Stationery Office, in case they should be needed. The order runs to some 71 pages. It could not be drawn up overnight once a decision had been taken. It had to be prepared on a contingency basis.
	As I reported to the House on 15 October, we carried on discussions with Railtrack until 3 October, but there was no way out of the dilemma; either we gave a guarantee on money, or the company became insolvent. So, on Friday 5 October, I reviewed all the relevant papers and considered all the options, including Railtrack's proposed rescue package, and I decided that no further Government funding should be made available to Railtrack. I decided that we could no longer give Railtrack a blank cheque.
	I informed John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, immediately of my decision, and of my decision to petition the High Court for a railway administration order if the company were insolvent. The order was granted on 7 October. Railtrack was taken into administration because it was, or was likely to become, unable to pay its debts. Our petition to the High Court showed that there would be a deficit of £700 million by 8 December this year, rising to £1.7 billion by the end of March next year.
	Railtrack was a creation of the Conservative party. Clearly, the Conservative party cannot come to terms with the fact that a failed Tory privatisation has been brought to an end by this Government. Railtrack represents much that was wrong with the Tory privatisation of the railways, with the travelling public seen as an inconvenience, getting in the way of the interests of shareholders. The time has come to put delivery to passengers before dividends to shareholders. That is what the Government have done.

Theresa May: Although I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response, we had heard most of it before. He has signally failed to answer adequately many questions that remain in the minds of passengers, staff and shareholders about the Government's handling of winding up Railtrack.
	On 15 October, the Secretary of State made a statement in which he claimed that he had decided to put Railtrack into administration on Friday 5 October. Since then, as he has just confirmed, it has become clear that the relevant statutory instrument had been prepared in September and was published on 28 September—at least a week before the Secretary of State claims he made his decision.
	There is a wealth of difference between assessing the implications of a decision, ascertaining what is necessary to make it and implementing it by using parliamentary draftsmen and others. The information calls into question the timing of the Secretary of State's decision to wind up Railtrack and the validity of his statement to the House on 15 October. It suggests that staff and shareholders were misled.
	Sadly, when the Secretary of State had already decided to wind up Railtrack, thousands of its employees were investing more of their hard-earned savings in the company. For the Government to allow people to invest their annual dividend while they signed away the railways' future is at least morally questionable. It is now open to legal challenge, and staff and passengers face months of uncertainty.
	The Secretary of State prays in aid the statement of principles that was agreed between the Government and Railtrack. I suggest that he considers the third principle, which makes it clear that the Government agreed that
	"The company . . . needs to receive sufficient Government funding, as determined by the Regulator."
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government threatened the regulator with legislation if he used his powers to intervene in Railtrack?
	There are other signs that the Government's decision was taken before 5 October. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangement for the chairman of Railtrack to attend a meeting with him at 4.45 pm on Friday 5 October was made on the afternoon of the previous day, Thursday 4 October, and that Railtrack was told that the time of the meeting could not be changed and had to be after the market had closed? Does he agree that that means that Lord Falconer was wrong in his statement in another place on 31 October that
	"during the course of the afternoon the Secretary of State reviewed the papers, made up his mind and called immediately for the chairman of the board of the company"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 1486.]?
	In the light of the fact that the Secretary of State's private office had arranged the meeting on the previous day, will he reconsider his statement of a few minutes ago that the chairman of the board was called in immediately after he had reviewed the papers on 5 October? If he did not know on 4 October that he was going to put Railtrack into administration, why was the meeting called and why was its timing so critical?
	The Secretary of State has admitted that administrators were first approached on 23 August. Will he publish the instructions that they were given then, and any changes to them that the Department subsequently made? When he decided that Railtrack was insolvent, did he take any account of the value of the stations that the company owns? Will he confirm that he was not able to proceed with winding up Railtrack without the authority of the Treasury and other Cabinet colleagues? When did he receive that authority? When was the Prime Minister's office made aware of his intention to put Railtrack into administration?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm once and for all when he decided in principle to put Railtrack into administration? All the evidence suggests that the Secretary of State had decided to wind up Railtrack before the decision was announced to the company and the markets, and that the decision of 5 October related to the timing of the announcement and not to whether the company should be wound up.
	We are not simply considering the Secretary of State's job but the credibility of the Government. Will the Secretary of State lay all anxieties to rest by agreeing to an independent public inquiry into the Government's handling of Railtrack?
	As the pieces of the jigsaw come together, it appears that, far from the decision being made on the afternoon of 5 October, it was a drawn-out act of wilful destruction by the Secretary of State. It is clear that he has been bent on destroying Railtrack from the start. As a result, schemes will be delayed, investment postponed and the industry placed in a protracted period of stagnation. There is a huge obstacle in the way of future investment in the railways. That obstacle is the Secretary of State. He must go.

Stephen Byers: The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised several specific questions and I am more than pleased to answer them, because it is right that the House should be made aware of the facts and not allegations that have no substance. The first relates to the railway administration order. That document is 71 pages long and could hardly be drawn up overnight.
	As I said to the House on 15 October, in order to protect passengers' interests, it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis. That was part of sensible contingency planning. That is the reality and it is as simple as that. There is no way that a railway administration order running to 71 pages could have been produced after I had had the conversation with Mr. Robinson on the afternoon of 5 October. It was therefore prepared on a contingency basis—as I said to the House on 15 October, before that issue was raised—in case railway administration was necessary.
	The second issue relates to the chairman of Railtrack being invited to a meeting in my office on the afternoon of 5 October, after the markets had closed. The hon. Lady should be aware from my statement on 15 October that the Government were considering two clear issues. One was whether to go for railway administration and the other was whether to agree to the request from Railtrack for further Government funding. I said to the House on 15 October that I took the decision—just after midday, I think it was—on 5 October that we could not afford any further Government money to bail out Railtrack. Had I made the other decision—to provide additional Government funding for Railtrack—my advice was that it would also have been market-sensitive information. Whatever decision I took had to be communicated to Railtrack when the markets had closed, whichever the option was. The meeting was set up for 4.45 pm on the Friday, because whatever decision I took—and we did not know when it was arranged—would have been market-sensitive and had to be communicated.
	In relation to the involvement of the Treasury and the Prime Minister, the decision was taken in the normal way. It was a Government decision which I took on behalf of the Government. [Hon. Members: "When?"] It was taken on Friday 5 October. That is the 20th time I have told the House that and it is the truth of the situation.
	In relation to the value of stations, those issues were considered by the High Court judge when he decided whether to agree to the petition. He agreed, because he realised the difficult situation faced by Railtrack. In terms of threats, there was no threat. In terms of the use of the regulator or denying the regulator his position, I was clear that the first people to raise the issue of suspending the regime of regulation were the advisers to Railtrack in August, when they produced the information. Of course, in my conversations with the chairman of Railtrack on 5 October, we covered the issue of how the regulator would deal with those matters, but the position was made clear at that time.
	In terms of the responsibilities, surely the question that shareholders should be asking concerns the responsibility of the directors of Railtrack. They knew the financial situation of Railtrack—that without additional Government funding, they would be unable to make a going concern statement on 8 November—so why did not the directors, who have a legal responsibility to their shareholders, tell them about the financial situation? The directors failed to do so.
	On the point that the hon. Lady raises about the demand now interestingly being made from the Conservative Benches for compensation to Railtrack shareholders, let us be clear what that would mean.

Theresa May: I did not mention it.

Stephen Byers: If the hon. Lady is not arguing for compensation for Railtrack shareholders, she should say that clearly. It was not clear in her question. The argument was clear—that £3.60, the claim that they are making, is reasonable. It would mean over £1 billion of extra taxpayers' money going to the interests of the shareholders.
	On the issue of the stations, the value of the stations was a matter for the High Court judge when he considered the petition on the Sunday afternoon.
	That is the sequence of events. The Opposition may not like it. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was in government, he was a sponsor of Railtrack. We have destroyed one of his better ideas, which says a lot about the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Railtrack had its time under the Conservatives. This Government have rightly brought it to an end.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if anyone has set out in this sad sorry saga of incompetence to destroy Railtrack, it is the directors and the managing directors, who have made it clear to the market, which has responded by making a clear judgment on the worth of the shares, that they were not capable of continuing to meet their obligation? Is he aware that it was Railtrack's figures that put it in the difficulty where it was not able to meet the costs of the modernisation of the west coast main line? Will he give an undertaking that, whatever comes into being as a result of this appalling incompetence, the new organisation will not only be transparent and responsible to the passenger and taxpayer, but very different in kind from Railtrack?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point from her experience as the Chairman of the Transport Committee. I think that we now have an opportunity to look at how to restructure the railway industry to put the interests of the travelling public first. What most commentators recognise is that the way in which Railtrack was constructed originally denied it the opportunity to put the interests of the travelling public first. We have overcome that. It was because of Railtrack being unable to meet its debts that the High Court allowed the petition for railway administration. Now we can move forward and put in place a structure whereby, because it will be a not-for-profit organisation, any operating surpluses can be used for the interests of the railway network. At last we can make progress towards providing a railway network that is fit for the fourth largest economy in the world, which simply is not the case at the moment.

Don Foster: Although the way in which the Secretary of State has handled the Railtrack issue has led to some confusion, not least in relation to the ownership of various assets, I believe that he has broadly followed the right way. Does he not agree that it was absolutely sensible to work up in detail the various proposals before making a final decision, and that today's effort by the Conservative party is basically nothing more than whingeing on behalf of the shareholders, who since May 1996 have received £700 million in dividends and who, incidentally, obtained Railtrack plc in the first instance for a knock-down price, undervalued by £6 billion?
	Does the Secretary of State not agree that what the vast majority of the travelling public are interested in is ensuring that we have a safe, reliable and affordable railway system? To that end, on the question of decision taking, having specifically promised an end to the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation, can my right hon. Friend tell us what action he has taken and what decisions he intends to make? Having promised greater co-operation and collaboration between rail and track, can he tell us what decisions he has taken on that issue?
	Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State this: having promised a not-for-profit public interest company, limited by guarantee, can he once again give the House an absolute assurance that the new body that he will allow to come into being will categorically not see the recreation of that obscene conflict, in a monopoly, between shareholder profit and passenger safety?

Stephen Byers: The hon. Gentleman's figures are right: since 1996, the shareholders of Railtrack have received about £700 million in dividends. His figures are also right in relation to the knock-down price for which the Railtrack shares were sold. In fact, the current chairman of the Conservative party, when he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, conducted a most useful investigation into the circumstances of the privatisation of Railtrack. As Chairman of the Select Committee, he concluded that the shares sold by the Conservative Government at that time were undervalued by about £6 billion. That was taxpayers' money that could have been put to useful purposes. It is helpful that the current chairman of the Conservative party was able to provide that information for the benefit of the House.
	Some of the confusion has been caused by the fact that there are two companies: Railtrack plc, which holds the licence to operate the network and which is in administration; and Railtrack Group, which is not in administration and is still run by the directors of Railtrack. Any value in Railtrack Group can be made available to shareholders. That will be a decision for the directors of Railtrack Group—rightly so.
	We are looking at penalties and compensation—as I think I noted in my statement on 15 October. We shall set out proposals and ideas to the House later on.
	In relation to moving forward, I believe that the appointment of Richard Bowker as the new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority has been widely welcomed. He will bring renewed vigour to the work of the authority and will give a real sense of direction and purpose.
	Finally, yes, I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that whatever structure is put in place—as is made clear in the guidelines that I announced last week—we do not want to repeat the structural mistakes that were made in relation to Railtrack and privatisation.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that when someone invests in that gambling den, the stock market, shares are likely to go up and then to fall again? When we consider Railtrack, it is almost incredible that the company made a hash of it. Now the Tories and their friends are worried about the money in their pockets. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House that when he discussed the three options the first was the present course; the second was to carry on handing over tons of money; and the third, which he has skimmed over very quickly, was renationalisation—I assume, without compensation? My right hon. Friend should not dismiss that option so lightly. When we consider the whole mess of British Rail and its 20-odd different pieces, at some time or other we shall have to come back to the question of a fully, publicly owned rail system in Britain.

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend makes a case that some of us have heard before about the need to nationalise the railway industry. That was one of the three Rs put to us by the advisers to Railtrack: receivership, renationalisation or restructuring. I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but it was not an option that we pursued with a lot of vigour. However, the options before us as a result of going for railway administration will give us the chance to provide a railway network fit for our country.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that shares can go up or down. What is interesting about Railtrack—uniquely for a private sector company—is that fully two thirds of all its income came directly by Government grant. That was the real problem for Railtrack. Of course, the company always depended on the Government to bail it out and sign the cheque but in the end it came once too often and the Government had to say no.

Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Gentleman talks about market-sensitive information. How can anyone have confidence in the integrity of his proposals when he stood back and allowed employees and the public to invest in Railtrack shares while he was working behind the scenes to devalue those shares? Does he not understand that he may retain the title for the time being, but that he is in grave danger of losing the moral authority that underpins it?

Stephen Byers: I can understand the anger that the right hon. Gentleman expresses because, of course, he was a member of the Government who put Railtrack in place. It is as simple as that, and the position is very clear.

Brian Mawhinney: Shareholders.

Stephen Byers: Shares in Railtrack were devalued because of the actions of Railtrack directors, and the right hon. Gentleman needs to consider the fact that the price of Railtrack shares dropped dramatically over the years because of the way in which the company was run. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, he will know that there is no obligation on a Secretary of State who receives information in confidence from a company to give the details to shareholders. He knows very well where that responsibility lies: in law, it lies with the directors of Railtrack. They knew the financial situation that they faced and that the chairman had come to me on 25 July and said, "If you don't give me more money, I cannot make a statement on the 8th of November that we are a going concern." What did he tell his shareholders?

David Jamieson: Nothing.

Stephen Byers: That is right—nothing. He said not a word to his shareholders. I discharged my responsibilities, but did the directors and the chairman of Railtrack discharge theirs?

Bill O'Brien: My right hon. Friend must be aware that a substantial number of rail passengers support his action because of the problems and difficulties that they have witnessed during the years of privatisation. He will also be aware that there are still a number of issues to be addressed on the east coast main line. Will the new authority undertake to complete the outstanding phases to bring the east coast main line up to standard? Even today, we experienced a 90-minute delay in services between Leeds and King's Cross, and passengers are complaining about that kind of service. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the new authority will continue to maintain and improve the east coast main line?

Stephen Byers: One of the benefits of the new proposals is that the operator of the licence will no longer be responsible for major upgrades to the network. One of the great difficulties that Railtrack faced with the west coast main line was the fact that the cost was originally estimated at a little more than £2 billion, whereas the estimates are now £6 billion or £7 billion, perhaps even more. That crippled Railtrack's finances. Under the new structure that we want to put in place, the network operator will be responsible for renewals, operations and maintenance of the network, but not for major infrastructure work.
	We propose a special-purpose vehicle, whereby the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority and the private sector will work together to ensure that major projects can be completed. I am confident that the east coast main line could provide us with one of the first opportunities to use a special-purpose vehicle to carry out the work that I, as a user of that line, know will be so important in future.

Andrew MacKay: What advice on the timing of the Railtrack announcement did the Secretary of State receive from his special adviser, Jo Moore?

Stephen Byers: No advice.

Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he would have been irresponsible if he had not put in train the detailed contingency work required to deal with the incompetence of the gang of feckless mendicants that was put together by the Conservative party? The fact that Conservative Members are unaware of the need for such contingency plans shows how far away they now are from the responsibility of government. If they continue with such absurd and pointless antics, it will be far longer before they can even form a credible Opposition.

Stephen Byers: It is noticeable that, since Railtrack was put into administration, no great difficulties have arisen. I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all the workers in Railtrack. While the company has been in administration, they have turned up daily and worked in a dedicated and highly motivated fashion: they are railway people, putting the interests of the railways first.
	In taking the decision to go for railway administration, we had to prepare for a range of issues, of which the railway administration orders are an example. The House would rightly have been critical if we had not been able to act on our decision to go for railway administration because we had not put the contingency arrangements in place. We had to make such arrangements—it was one of the options available to me. Therefore, when I took the decision on Friday 5 October, I had to make a judgment between railway administration or additional Government funding for the proposals from Railtrack. I took the decision that no further Government money would be made available, and we had the appropriate contingency planning in place for that decision.

Peter Lilley: The Secretary of State ended his rather partisan statement by saying that privatisation had prevented money from being invested in services for passengers, and that instead it had been paid out in dividends. Will he confirm the answer that a junior Minister gave me: that the total invested by private investors in Railtrack exceeds by a factor of nearly three the amount paid out in dividends? Will the Secretary of State explain how people are to be persuaded to invest in other public-private finance initiatives when they know that the Government, having pocketed their money, may suddenly cease to pay dividends or to return any of it to them?

Stephen Byers: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government made crystal clear our response in relation to Railtrack on 2 April, but I shall repeat that important statement for the benefit of the House. When we agreed on 2 April to make available £1.5 billion to Railtrack—£337 million of which was paid on 1 October—we wanted our approach to Railtrack and to other companies in the railway sector to be made clear to shareholders. That is why we said:
	"The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders".
	Nothing could be clearer. Railtrack's shareholders should have seen that and asked whether the Government were going to continue to bail out the company. In the end, we decided that no further Government funds should be made available.
	The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the City knows that Railtrack is a unique being. The City is still interested in public-private partnerships because it knows that they are quite different from the privatisation of the railways that he so enthusiastically supported.

Howard Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for the helpful statement that he will put the travelling public first. That is more than we hear from Conservative Members, who seem to be interested only in shareholders.
	My right hon. Friend will be only too well aware that the channel tunnel rail link phase 2 will not just benefit the travelling public but will be enormously important to the economy of this country. It will bring huge regeneration opportunities to north Kent, east London and all points north. Will he therefore assure the House that major projects such as the rail link will go ahead on target? That would reassure my constituents in Dartford that it is business as usual and that we will have the economic development that we badly need.

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of the channel tunnel rail link phase 2. He will be aware that it is a good example of how a special-purpose vehicle can be used effectively. The project is on time and is under budget, and we are confident that it will proceed. It will be unaffected by the changes made as a result of Railtrack going into administration.
	My hon. Friend asked me to give assurances to the people of north Kent and east London who want the channel tunnel rail link to proceed. I can give them the commitment that they want: the project is moving ahead; it is on time and on schedule; and we look forward to receiving the benefits of that investment.

Nick Hawkins: As co-chairman of the all-party railways group, I put it to the Secretary of State that in all his statements on this sorry fiasco he has sought to define three separate categories. He has mentioned the travelling public and employees, and has exhibited his and his Back Benchers' visceral hatred of shareholders and the private sector. However, he has failed to understand that much of the travelling public and an even greater proportion of the employees are shareholders. Will he answer the specific allegation that his inaction between the end of July and early October created a false market in Railtrack shares? He misled shareholders and, in particular, did not discharge his responsibilities in the last week? Having talked about his three Rs, he should add a fourth—his resignation.

Stephen Byers: The decision was taken on 5 October not to provide additional funding for Railtrack. As a consequence, Railtrack could not cover its debts because it could not control its costs. It would be interesting to know what approach the hon. Gentleman would have taken. On 25 July, I received information in confidence from Railtrack's chairman that unless it received more Government money it would not be able to make a going-concern statement on 8 November. Would the hon. Gentleman have expected me to tell Railtrack's shareholders of that on Monday? Clearly not.
	There is a conflict in the Conservatives' approach. Information is given to a Secretary of State in confidence, which he abides by and respects, and he discharges his legal duties up to 5 October. Why did not the chairman of Railtrack ensure that his shareholders knew that without extra Government money he would not be able to make a going-concern statement? That is what the hon. Gentleman needs to answer.

David Winnick: Should not my right hon. Friend be grateful to the Opposition for raising this subject? It constantly reminds the public of the disastrous privatisation of the industry, the misery that has flowed from it and the vast sums of public money that have gone into private pockets. If I were Secretary of State, I would suggest that the Opposition continue to raise it time and again.

Stephen Byers: I am more than happy to discuss the way forward for the railway industry. As I think I said in my statement on 15 October, the circumstances of Railtrack going into administration are regrettable, and no one will celebrate them. However, now that it has happened, we have a golden opportunity to create a railway network fit for the 21st century. The real challenges lie ahead. We have to put in place changes to franchising, the structure and regulation to ensure that the railway system can respond to the new pressures and demands of the time. That is exactly what we intend to do with the new opportunities that are available to us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

John Spellar: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Chamber is slightly quieter and less crowded than when I addressed it a couple of weeks ago.
	The Bill is straightforward. It has a single specific purpose—to equalise the entitlement to concessionary travel for men and women at the age of 60. It will bring to some 8 million the number of people who benefit from the Government's statutory requirements for travel concessions.
	Concessionary fare schemes offer cheaper travel on public transport for people who are economically disadvantaged, and demonstrate our commitment to fighting social exclusion. The Government are committed to ensuring that bus travel in particular remains within the means of those on limited incomes and those who have mobility difficulties.
	Legislation requiring local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions for elderly and disabled people on local buses came into force earlier this year. Those changes are benefiting 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people across England and Wales. With this Bill, a further 1 million men aged between 60 and 64 will be able to share the benefits of concessionary travel, bringing the total number of people who benefit to about 8 million.
	The provision for travel concessions is at present in the Transport Act 1985, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. As I said, local authorities in England and Wales must arrange for elderly and disabled people living in their areas to receive a half-fare concession or better on local bus services—those within the local authority's area—subject to the person obtaining a permit, which must be given free of charge.
	Local authorities also have discretion to offer further concessions on bus and other public passenger transport services, such as local trains, metros, ferries or the London underground. They may also provide concessionary travel outside their boundaries if they wish. Indeed, many local authorities offer concessions on other modes of public transport and fares cheaper than half price, or they join to offer an area-wide scheme—an obvious example of that is London. However, authorities must not offer a scheme providing less than the half-fare statutory minimum.

David Winnick: The Bill raises an important point for the west midlands. I certainly welcome what my right hon. Friend is introducing, but as he knows, since he is a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, the region has a totally free bus scheme, which pensioners are keen to keep. We hope—I am sure that he agrees—that there will be no undermining of that scheme, which has been in operation for some time?

John Spellar: As my hon. Friend is aware, all that the legislation provides, which is important in many areas of the country, is the statutory minimum. It is open to local authorities to provide more than that, and, as he rightly says, the west midlands has been doing so for a considerable period. I know that he has been an extremely worthy exponent of the advantages of the scheme and the mobility that it gives elderly and disabled people in the region. He is aware of the commitment of local authorities in the west midlands to maintaining that scheme.

Eric Pickles: I was a little surprised to hear the Minister mention ferries. I understand that there is an issue concerning any crossing of the Solent except by jobseekers and some hospital patients. Will he clarify that specific matter?

John Spellar: It is open to local authorities to offer further concessions. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman may need to be discussed with the local authorities involved—presumably, Isle of Wight unitary council and Hampshire county council—but, following his intervention, I am certainly happy to have a look at it.
	At the moment, entitlement to travel concessions for elderly people is linked to pensionable age, as defined in the Pensions Act 1995. That means that women may take advantage of concessionary travel schemes offered by their local authority at 60, but men must wait until their 65th birthday to do so. There is of course no age barrier to entitlement to concessionary fare schemes for disabled people. Given the opposition to current legislation, which discriminates on the ground of gender, we have decided to end the anomaly. In this Bill, we are therefore legislating to equalise entitlement at 60. We expect the provisions to take effect from April 2003 at the latest.
	Under the provisions of the Pensions Act, pensionable age will start to equalise from 2010, so that by 2020 both men and women will receive state pensions at age 65. Clause 1(4) provides reserve powers for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to restore the link to entitlement to concessionary fares with that to state pensions. Should orders be made under that power—in 2010 at the earliest—the age of entitlement to concessionary travel for both men and women would similarly rise to 65 by 2020.
	The Bill will not create new concessionary fare schemes. Local authorities will have to adjust their concessionary fare schemes to broaden entitlement to men aged between 60 and 64, but we envisage that the additional administrative burden on local authorities of issuing passes will be minimal.
	Reimbursement arrangements under existing legislative provisions mean that the financial impact on transport operators will be neutral. Operators are reimbursed for revenue forgone so that they are financially no better and no worse off than if they did not participate in the concessionary fares scheme. Calculation of the level of reimbursement by local authorities may take into account increases in the number of passengers travelling—the so-called generation factor. Those reimbursement arrangements are well tried and tested, and we do not foresee any difficulty in administering or operating the increased entitlement.
	There is no doubt that concessionary fares are expensive. In England, local authorities currently spend £440 million each year on their schemes, and extending eligibility to men aged 60 to 64 might cost an additional £50 million a year in England. That will be a new cost to local authorities and additional funding will be made available through the revenue support grant in the normal way as part of the local government finance settlement.
	In terms of territorial extent, the Bill applies to England and Wales. The National Assembly for Wales has its own commencement powers. Concessionary travel is devolved to Scotland and separate legislation to equalise entitlement is making progress there. In Northern Ireland, entitlement is already equalised at 65.
	As a further measure to tackle social exclusion, I take this opportunity to announce our agreement in principle to a proposal under which coach operators would offer half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on long-distance scheduled coaches in England; in return for the fare concessions, operators would, for the first time, receive fuel duty rebate. That was recommended by the Commission for Integrated Transport. After discussions with the Treasury, we are responding to that recommendation. Many older and disabled people rely on coaches to travel long distances, especially to maintain family links, so I am sure that they will welcome a free pass entitling them to half-price fares.
	The Bill is a small but important measure that will ensure that men and women receive the benefits of concessionary travel without discrimination. That will be welcomed by an additional 1 million elderly people and, I hope, by the whole House.

Eric Pickles: The Minister is right to describe the Bill as a small and modest piece of legislation, but on a personal level it is frightening, because it reminds us of our own mortality. I noted with considerable shock that should we make the decision in 2010 to phase in the concessions to reflect the arrangements for the state pension, I will become a beneficiary in June 2014, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in June 2016. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), looks at me inquiringly, but I was far too gallant to look up in "Vacher's" the information needed for me to state the relevant date for her.
	We shall not oppose the Bill, but we have some reservations which are founded on the law of unintended consequences. We are worried that the Bill might adversely affect some discretionary schemes such that some other groups have their rights withdrawn—the Minister had a taste of that concern courtesy of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)—or existing beneficiaries of age-related schemes get a poorer deal.
	The worst that could happen is that the scheme becomes bogged down in arguments about the formula, so we must be sure that it is correct and not based on false assumptions. The Minister is aware that the Local Government Association, of which I, with many others, have the honour to be a vice-president, believes that his Department might have underestimated the effects.
	Agreement was reached on an increased aggregate revenue support grant. Provision of £54 million—slightly more than the original estimate of £47 million—was made for the cost of the proposals. I understand that the Department estimates that the additional requirements under the Bill will cost about £50 million. The basis of those calculations will have to be carefully considered during the Bill's passage through Parliament.
	The principal difference resulting from the reduction in the qualifying age for men is that many of the recipients will be in full-time employment; their transportation usage is likely to be greater than that of a retired person. I note that, in another place, assurances of full consultation were given by the Government; I hope that they will be honoured.

John Spellar: indicated assent

Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, which is reassuring.
	Making estimates, both nationally and locally, of the consequences of the Bill is difficult, as operators have not produced a body of evidence for revenue that will be forgone by current public transport users in that economically active category. I am not entirely sure—I am not pushing this aggressively—that we are on tried and tested ground.

John Spellar: In a similarly co-operative way, may I help the hon. Gentleman? Of course, he will be aware that concessionary fare schemes start at 9.30 am. Therefore, allowing for the fact that some people work shifts, a considerable number of those in work would not be able to use their pass because the rush hour is already excluded. We believe that that will tend to minimise the additional costs, but I recognise that there may be an issue, on which we shall consult.

Eric Pickles: That is fair and reasonable but, by way of an attempted rebuttal, the situation will be continuing for a period of years. The Government are actively encouraging flexi-working and public transport companies are actively offering inducements to take up spare capacity outside peak hours. I therefore hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying that I am not entirely sure that we are using tried and tested methods.
	The LGA said:
	"the imposition of this specific new burden with its widely varying local consequences requires an innovative look at whether there can be transitional measures to ease the particular problems which some authorities may face."
	That is reasonable. After all, this is the second large review that transport authorities have had to undertake within a relatively short period. We do not know how concessions will be bedded in. Ministers involved with the Transport Act 2000 talked about the way in which the measures would be bedded in. It will be several years before concessions are on-stream. It would be a mistake to embark on a fundamental review of the formula, but we should look most carefully at the transitional arrangements.
	For example, £15 million was allocated to the London boroughs to cover the cost of equalisation for the freedom pass. Because of the way in which the grant system and the mechanism works, they received only £11 million, leaving the council taxpayer to fill the hole. There was a time when I could recite the formula for the allocation but, I am pleased to tell the House, I have forgotten it and have no desire to learn it again. Nevertheless, it illustrates the point that these things are complicated; we can come up with a simple intention with which we all agree, but find ourselves leaving local authorities materially worse off.
	We have already heard from the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the Minister's friend and neighbour from the west midlands, who expressed worries similar to those of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. In a briefing document prepared for our debate, it says that there are concerns that
	"need to be carefully considered as the Bill proceeds if there are not to be further cuts in the provision of concessionary fares for blind and partially sighted people and other disabled"
	groups.
	The Minister conceded that some earlier discretionary schemes are much better than existing schemes. The failure to match funding and reality has already created problems in a number of authorities. The Local Government Association has identified about 20 local authorities that have made amendments to existing alternative schemes which might be taken as reductions. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the West Midlands passenger transport authority. Many authorities have removed a previous 100 per cent. concession for all modes of transport and replaced it with the choice of a free bus pass allowing half-price travel on buses, or the option of paying for a pass giving bigger reductions.
	In Birmingham a scheme that had been in place since just before the first world war was ended without consultation with blind and partially sighted people. Redress was made following the intervention of local Members of Parliament, but I understand that the chairman of the passenger transport authority says that unless there is a substantial increase in grant, the process will be reversed. I hope that I am wrong about that, but the chairman is on public record as saying so.
	Lancashire county council proposes to stop issuing passes to blind people allowing them to travel for a flat 30p fare. Existing passes will be maintained, but in future blind people will be issued with a statutory half-price pass for buses only. The RNIB highlights the problem of blind and partially sighted people having the right change, the possibility that people with white sticks or guide dogs may be targets for muggers, and the social inconvenience of blind people delaying other passengers.
	The RNIB has anecdotal evidence that other local authorities have reduced their concessionary fares to the 50 per cent. statutory minimum, even before they incur the costs of the Bill when it is enacted. I do not believe for a moment that that is what the Government want. I also know of the long discussions and the brinkmanship in which everyone in local authorities engages with Government in respect of funding. That is why I refer to the law of unintended consequences.
	We are not likely to get primary legislation such as the Bill very often. We have made a number of comments in relation to the Transport Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999. We are missing an opportunity to pull together all the concessionary fares and put them on a unified footing. We should decide, for example, whether schemes are to be available to young people. The LGA believes that the Bill may provide an opportunity for statutory eligibility in respect of certain persons to be inserted in the Transport Act 1985 or the Transport Act 2000, perhaps by applying the statutory minimum scheme or other schemes to schoolchildren and/or young persons in full-time education.
	The Minister spoke about coaches. Some operators offer a 33 per cent. discount to people of pensionable age, which is welcome. When the Under-Secretary replies, it would be helpful if she could spell out the kind of sum envisaged. Will that be in addition to the £12 million coach concessionary fare scheme? Can she also clarify whether the money will come from the unallocated Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions funds in the spending plans for the next three years under the 10-year transport plan?
	It would be helpful if the Minister could respond on another matter that causes all kinds of problems, particularly for authorities that border large conurbations. The problem is particularly acute when that large conurbation is London. It concerns journeys that start in one local authority area and finish in another. I have difficulty explaining to pensioners in my constituency why they experience problems when they undertake journeys outside the Brentwood area and into Romford. It is a serious problem for my constituents because all our hospital services are outside the local authority area, which causes confusion and resentment.
	Help the Aged said of the Bill:
	"Our ultimate goal is for all over 60 in the United Kingdom to have a freedom pass to travel by bus when and where they like in their locality. Only then will older people nationally feel that they have been given a fair deal."
	Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) introduced a private Member's Bill that sought to amend section 145 of the Transport Act 2000 so that it covered neighbouring authorities. That tidying up might be helpful. It may not be possible to do so, but it would be appropriate to examine the possibility in Committee. Only in that way will we be able to iron out that major anomaly in the scheme.
	Obviously, we shall not oppose the Bill. We require some scrutiny of it, principally of the measures that I have outlined. We believe that the Bill should answer many of the questions left unanswered in the course of proceedings on the Transport Act 2000. Above all, we must guard against the law of unintended consequences.

Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and will not seek to divide the House this evening, or whenever the opportunity arises.
	Let me begin by saying in a friendly way to the Minister that it is a pity, given the crowded legislative programme, to have this legislation before us. The Government were given an opportunity in February of last year to put this matter right. During the Committee stage of the Transport Bill I moved amendments that would have had the same effect as this Bill. When I did that on 29 February, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), said that he recognised the strength of feeling about the issue and claimed that his ministerial postbag
	"has made me well aware of the issue, so I have thought hard about it"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 February 2000; c. 818.].
	Unfortunately, having thought hard about it, he decided to do nothing and the problem remains.
	The Government had a further opportunity to act before drafting this Bill. As a result of the endeavours of the excellent organisation, Parity, a case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government were told that Mr. Matthews case had been deemed to be admissible and they had to decide what to do. I was a bit disappointed in the Government's treatment of the issue. I looked back in Hansard and saw that on 13 February this year, when I asked the Government what they would do about it the same then Minister said:
	"The Government are certainly aware of the Matthews case, which is before the European Court, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. We are considering the implementation of that case and our response."—[Official Report, 13 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 144.]
	I was delighted that they did not think very long about it. Only three days later, at the Labour party conference in Glasgow, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"I have also received representations saying 'why shouldn't men and women qualify at the same age?' I agree.
	I can announce today that in a second term we will equalise the age for concessionary fares, benefiting an extra one million people over 60 years of age. That's good for transport and it's good for social justice, too."
	It is slightly odd that the Deputy Prime Minister did not point out that this was being forced on the Government. It was not something that they had done of their own volition and could have done several months earlier. Notwithstanding all that, I am delighted that at last the Government have seen sense, many months later than might have been the case.
	Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I, too, have concerns about three issues, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate them in Committee. First, the Minister will be aware of concerns among local government associations that the Government's current estimates of the likely additional cost of this measure may be inadequate. I am delighted that the Government have given assurances that there will continue to be consultation on these issues. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept that there is a problem in that we do not have an effective set of data to use as a starting base from which to make comparisons of future costs. However, it is vital that the Government stick to their assurance and allow for continuing consultation on costs.
	The hon. Gentleman said very eloquently that there are many examples of local authorities having to make cuts in other concessionary fare schemes as a result of introducing new ones. He referred to examples in London, the west midlands and Lancashire. I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen those and other examples in the briefs that have been prepared in advance of this debate. Introducing one set of concessionary fare schemes must not lead to the abandonment of others that have been considered very necessary in supporting people of various groups.
	Secondly, there is the opportunity to widen the scope of the categories of people who could be helped through concessionary fare schemes. Like many other people on both sides of the House, I am concerned about the situation in our educational system. One in two young people at the age of 16 gives up the opportunity to continue with any further education and, when questioned, a large proportion of them cite the cost of transport as one of the key reasons for giving up further educational opportunities. Given that we are all desperately keen to see an increase in educational opportunities for that age group, I hope that we will use the Bill to address one of the barriers—the cost of transport—to opportunities for further education.
	The third issue, raised by the hon. Gentleman, is cross-boundary travel. I received a briefing from Age Concern which expresses the problem succinctly. It says:
	"The government's present limitation seems to expect that elderly and disabled people should keep all their family and friends, all their health care providers, all their shopping, entertainment and recreations, all their places of worship—indeed all their possible reasons for travel—in the same local authority area as themselves. The government may believe in strong local neighbourhoods, but this seems to be carrying the principle a little too far. Age Concern England believes in a minimum travel concession scheme which is truly national."
	I recognise that the Government, too, wish to make progress in developing a national scheme, examining all the various schemes that currently exist and finding ways of establishing more integration between them.
	I welcome the Minister's announcement that we have at last found a way forward in respect of national coach travel. He said that there would be a Government quid pro quo in relation to availability of a fuel duty rebate to fund that, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will tell us a little more about how she expects the scheme to operate. To whom, for instance, should an individual apply? I am not talking just about applications for tickets; what will be the source of the recompense? Will it come from local authorities, or will there be a nationally funded scheme whereby individual coach operators go directly to the Department for any recompense that is not covered by the availability of fuel duty rebate? This is, however, a move in the right direction.
	I feel that there is further work to be done in Committee on the three issues of funding, the widening of the scheme to other groups—particularly young people—and its extension to cross individual council boundaries. Nevertheless, like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, we welcome the proposals and look forward to making more progress in Committee.

Betty Williams: I welcome the Bill with open arms. I can tell the Minister that many of my constituents who have been writing to me about the issue for some months will also welcome it, as, no doubt, will others throughout the country.
	Will the Minister clarify one point? If the National Assembly for Wales wants to bring the scheme forward to, say, April 2002, will it be able to do so? That is important, because the Assembly may want to introduce such schemes before other parts of the country. That is what devolution means.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) in confirming that Her Majesty's Opposition strongly support this relatively straightforward measure, which arises from the Matthews case, which was taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
	Like the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), I should like to know when the Minister expects the measure to come into force. That is important, especially in relation to London. As she knows, the two-yearly scheme in London must be renegotiated at the beginning of 2002, and that poses a particular problem for the capital. If the Bill comes into operation before the end of this year, London will be able to incorporate it into the new scheme that starts in 2002; otherwise, it will have two options. Either it must pay for the additional scheme for a year, or the operation of the scheme will be delayed until 2004. I hope that she can clear that up. It is in everyone's interests for the Government to push the Bill through so that it can come into force by the end of this year, and the additional 1 million or so people who will benefit can do so in 2002 rather than 2003.
	I calculate that the Government already invest, or propose to invest, some £571 million in concessionary schemes of one kind or another. Under the Transport Act 1985, which gives local authorities quite wide powers of discretion, they spend £440 million, and £54 million under the Transport Act 2000. As I understand it, this Bill will cost £50 million in England alone, and another £15 million in Scotland and Wales. With the fuel rebate scheme that the Minister for Transport mentioned today, which has an estimated cost of £12 million, the total Government spend on concessionary travel is £571 million. As I understand it, 7 million people— 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people—benefit from concessionary travel, and the Bill's proposed scheme will make another 1 million people eligible. The Government are therefore operating a very considerable concession.
	I should like to examine commuting, who will benefit from the new concession and when they will benefit from it. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) promoted his Road Transport Bill which, had the Government accepted it, would have allowed one local authority's concession scheme to operate in another local authority's area. Such an arrangement seems only fair. If the Bill is to establish a national scheme, each local authority's scheme should operate in other local authorities' systems. I hope that the Minister will address that.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked about the scope of the Bill, which will clearly apply only to those who travel between 9 am and 11 pm. It seems likely that those who work flexi-hours and particularly those who have reached more senior posts towards the end of their working lives will be able to take advantage of the scheme. Will the Minister therefore say something about reimbursement of local authorities, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, that face a burden because of considerably increased usage? I am glad that Ministers will consult the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, but will they consider that issue carefully?
	We all know about the anomalies that arise when any grant is distributed through the standard spending assessment via the rate support grant. Although I know that the Government are committed to distributing the concession outlined in the Bill by means of those mechanisms, I do not know why they cannot directly reimburse local authorities on the basis of concessionary journeys made, tickets issued or schemes implemented, so that no local authority will be out of pocket. What do the Government plan to do if a local authority can prove—clearly, it would have to do so retrospectively—that it is considerably out of pocket because of the skewing effect of the SSA system?
	Further to my hon. Friend's comments on the law of unintended consequences, will the Minister tackle the postal code lottery? On the Bill's Second Reading in the other place—I believe that this is precisely the type of example that my hon. Friend had in mind—in describing the situation for visually impaired people in Birmingham, Baroness Wilkins said:
	"people in Birmingham have enjoyed free travel on public transport since 1913, but that is to end this August. Instead of a free off-peak travel pass, covering train, metro and all bus travel, or a pass costing £18.70 for free travel at all hours, they will be entitled to half-price bus travel only. If they want to continue to have the freedom to travel on the bus, rail and metro, they will have to buy extra tickets costing £232 per year for off-peak and £265 a year for 24-hour travel."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 944.]
	Instead of having something for a relatively nominal fee of £18.70, they face considerably increased costs. She went on to say that, not surprisingly, blind, deaf and partially sighted people living in Birmingham had been much distressed by the move. I hope that the Government will encourage local authorities to use their discretion and ensure that existing schemes can continue.
	It is high time that we in this House ended the postcode lottery of Government money. If the Government offer a scheme on transport concessions, health or anything else, it should be offered to everybody in the country equally, and not on the basis of postcode.

John Spellar: What about the council?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Who one elects to one's council is also important, and local authorities have discretion. Here we have a Government scheme that is fettering local authorities' discretion because councils will not have the money to offer such schemes in the future.
	Are the Government happy that the scheme will absolve Northern Ireland, which, as the Minister mentioned, will equalise the age for the scheme at 65? That seems to be unfair to women. If women in Great Britain can take advantage of the scheme at 60, why must the women of Northern Ireland wait until they are 65?
	It was unfortunate that Mr. Matthews had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to bring about this proposal. We are living in an age of increased equality and I hope that, in future, the Government will think more clearly and get the elementary things right before they rush legislation through the House. The hon. Member for Bath was right to point out that Liberal Democrat amendments tabled on a previous occasion would have avoided the need for us to discuss this measure this afternoon. When Opposition parties table amendments, I hope that the Government will consider our opposition with the depth and purpose that it deserves.
	Nevertheless, 1 million people will benefit from the proposal and will be grateful to the Government for what has happened in the House today. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the scheme will come into operation at the end of this year, so that those 1 million people will be able to benefit next year instead of in 2003.

Sally Keeble: I welcome this brief yet interesting debate on this short but important Bill. The level of interest in the Bill in the Chamber does not reflect that outside the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that given the gender and age profile of Members of Parliament, one might have thought that the Bill would have been of more interest to them. I assure him that I will be up with him collecting my pass.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall get into trouble with the Register of Members' Interests if I do not declare that I will collect my pass in 2013.

Sally Keeble: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	Concessionary fares are of major interest to a wide range of people outside the House, as is reflected in the constant letters and queries on the subject. Some controversies have been discussed this afternoon, such as the concerns raised by people from the Isle of Wight, Birmingham and the west midlands and elsewhere.
	The Government have made it clear that local authorities' discretion is not fettered by previous legislation. We strongly encouraged local authorities to maintain their existing programmes and not to reduce their schemes because of legislation. Reductions in Birmingham and the west midlands have been discussed, but I understand that Birmingham city council has agreed to revert to its original scheme and pay for free travel through a free bus pass for blind residents, although other disabled residents receive a slightly less generous concession.
	Anxieties have also been raised about Greater Manchester. The Department's advice makes it clear that it can continue with its previous schemes. Representatives from the area will meet me to discuss some of their concerns. We are anxious to ensure that councils maintain their existing schemes.

Eric Pickles: Will the Minister confirm that the holder of the social services portfolio in Birmingham's cabinet is so worried about lack of adequate funding for the concessionary fare scheme in Birmingham that he fears that he may be forced to cut blind people's free travel again?

Sally Keeble: As we progress with the scheme, we will consult all the local authorities, and I am sure that Birmingham city council will want to raise the matter.
	Hon. Members asked several other questions, which I shall try to answer before concluding with some general remarks. We were asked about cost. The total cost of implementing the Bill is expected to be approximately £50 million, but there will be careful discussions with local authorities about that. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is right that the way in which the grant is provided to local authorities will have to be carefully calculated.
	Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced a concessionary coach travel scheme, which will be implemented through the coach industry. Discussions about that will take place with the industry. The scheme is expected to cost approximately £10 million.

Don Foster: What is its likely starting date?

Sally Keeble: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that because we must sort out the exact details of its operation so that it is effected in an orderly way.
	Hon. Members asked about cross-border travel. Again, it is up to local authorities to work together to provide schemes that are valuable to local residents. Nothing prevents them from making arrangements with each other to fulfil the travel requirements of their local residents. We urge them to do that.
	The hon. Gentleman claimed that he thought of the scheme first and that we could have implemented it some time ago. He has made such comments before. For many years, entitlement to concessionary fares has been linked to the state pension age: 60 for women but 65 for men. It was expected that the age would gradually equalise at 65 by 2020 under the Pensions Act 1995. Parliament has therefore already legislated on age equalisation.
	During the progress of the Transport Act 2000, we were aware of claims that entitlement to concessionary travel was unfair on the ground of gender. However, given that age entitlement for concessionary fares has been questioned again, and the strength of feeling about the matter, it is right to introduce this small but important Bill to equalise the age of entitlement earlier than 2020. I hope that hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, will accept the measure in the spirit in which it is intended.

Don Foster: I do.

Sally Keeble: Good.
	Several hon. Members raised the serious issue of why concessions cannot be provided for everyone, but it is not possible; they must be targeted. Bus transport is one of the main means of overcoming barriers to work or attending hospital appointments and we need to ensure that people are not disadvantaged because of lack of access to it. The Government are especially concerned about that issue, and that is why we recently introduced the urban bus challenge, following the introduction of the rural bus challenge programme, so that we can find ways to target bus services at those people who need them. The lack of bus transport must not prevent people from leading normal lives or, especially, young unemployed people from finding work.
	Several hon. Members asked about schemes in the devolved areas. In Wales, a half-fare scheme was introduced on 1 April 2001. The intention is to follow that with a Wales-wide free travel scheme, funded by the Welsh Assembly, at a further cost of £21 million a year, starting in April 2002. Equalisation for eligibility for travel concessions is expected to start at the same time as in England in April 2003, and I hope that that information satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams).
	In Northern Ireland, a Province-wide scheme is run by the Government. It allows half-fare travel for elderly and disabled people on bus and rail services, with no charge for the pass. It is also intended to introduce free travel for pass holders from April 2002.

Betty Williams: I seek further clarification on the situation in Wales. If the Assembly chooses to have a scheme that will equalise provision for men and women from April 2002, would it be possible for the Government to make provision in the Bill to allow it to do so, so that men in Wales will not have to wait until 2003?

Sally Keeble: Decisions of that sort are for the Assembly to make. One of the consequences of the devolved Assemblies is that they will on occasion take decisions that differ from the ones that we take here. In Northern Ireland, eligibility for travel concessions is already equalised at 65.
	I think that I have answered most of the questions raised in the debate. The Government are committed to fighting social exclusion and to ensuring that all elderly people can take advantage of discounted travel. Extending the advantages to men aged 60 to 64 will help to achieve that goal. The Bill is a straightforward measure that will enable a further 1 million men to take advantage of concessionary travel on top of the 7 million elderly and disabled people who are already entitled to cheaper fares. The Bill will bring to 8 million the number of people who will benefit from statutory travel concessions, which means that at a minimum they will pay half-price bus fares with no charges for the pass. It will be a big help to many pensioners.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is it the Government's intention that the Bill should come into operation by 31 December this year to enable men aged between 60 and 64 to benefit next year instead of in 2003?

Sally Keeble: I have already dealt with some of those issues. The Bill first has to go through Parliament, and we are in the hands of various people—including the Conservatives—when it comes to the passage of legislation. We must also resolve several issues with local authorities about the implementation and costs of the scheme. However, whenever it comes in, it will be a big help to the many pensioners who cannot afford to use public transport to get out, to visit friends and relatives, to go shopping or to get to medical appointments.
	The Bill underlines the Government's commitment to fighting social exclusion, promoting equality and, in particular, improving the lives of older people. I believe that it will be widely welcomed by people throughout the country. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (ELIGIBILITY) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

Education

Stephen Timms: I beg to move,
	That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
	Regulations made under the Education Act 1996, which were laid before the House on 23 October and referred to in the draft code of practice, provide the detail of the statutory requirements for assessments, statements and reviews of statements of special educational needs in England. Those consolidate the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) Regulations 2001, the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, and the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001, which themselves replaced the 1994 regulations.
	We have been here before. On 10 July, I stood at the Dispatch Box to open a debate to consider a draft of the revised SEN code of practice. We had a lively and informative debate. Hon. Members will recall that, in closing it, I promised that the Government would reflect very carefully on the concerns that were expressed by a number of those who contributed, many on behalf of parents, about the guidance in that draft on quantifying the provision in children's statements of SEN.
	As hon. Members will know, following the debate, we withdrew the then draft code of practice from Parliament to reflect on those concerns, and the concerns raised by Members in another place. We have made changes to deal with those concerns in the draft now before the House.

Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister explain why he was voting for this measure and we were voting against it at the same time as his Department withdrew it?

Stephen Timms: In closing the debate last time, I made it clear that we would listen very carefully and consider very carefully the points that were made to us. That is what we have done. The version of the code of practice that is before us reflects the results of our deliberations.
	In the debate on 10 July, it was clear that a number of hon. Members were concerned that the guidance on quantifying the provision in children's statements of SEN could be interpreted as encouraging vague statements. Let me make it clear that it was never the Government's intention to weaken the position of children with statements. The guidance in the previous draft made it clear that a statement should describe all the child's special educational needs clearly and in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and in detail appropriate provision to meet each of the child's needs; and describe the arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child and any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement. It stressed the importance of the school's monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year. It placed new emphasis on the importance of the local education authority monitoring with the school the child's progress towards identified outcomes.

Tim Boswell: As the Minister knows, I have had a certain passing interest in these matters. Is it not in fact only because many local authorities' practice fell far short of the ideal prescribed or encouraged by all Governments that the argument and the controversy in relation to which he has now conceded the point has taken place? Is it not the fact that many local authorities either could not—or in certain cases would not—make adequate and specific provision that has brought this debate about?

Stephen Timms: First, I pay tribute to the close interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter over a long period and to the contributions that he has made to previous debates. Certainly, concerns have been expressed as to how the system has worked, although not exclusively in the aspects to which he alludes, and they have led to the need to revise the code of practice—hence the version that we are considering this evening.
	All the advice in the earlier version of the code, to which I have drawn attention, is also included in the current version. The draft code, which we debated in July, advised that appropriate provision for each identified need should always be specified in clear, specific and detailed terms. It made it absolutely clear that LEAs must not have blanket policies such that provision is never quantified in statements—there have been some difficulties in that regard. Following helpful interventions during the debates in another place on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the section in the draft code on assessments was strengthened to make it clear that professionals giving advice can comment on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child, and that LEAs must not have blanket policies that would prevent that.
	The draft code makes it clear that provision in statements should normally be quantified in terms of hours and of starting arrangements, for example.

Phil Willis: While the Minister is dealing with paragraph 8:37 of the draft code, can he give the House an example to show where provision should not be quantified?

Stephen Timms: In a moment, I will give the House an example of when such provision might not be appropriate.
	The draft code also recognises—as does the current code of practice—that there will be cases where some flexibility is required to meet the changing needs of the child concerned. A code of practice can never dictate the precise details of the provision to be made for each and every child. There must be some flexibility so as to respond specifically to the individual needs and circumstances of different children.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me for an example. In the case of a visually impaired child in a mainstream school—an example to which I have referred in a previous debate—it may be that the child or the school require advice or help from a specialist teacher of the visually impaired, but it may make no sense to specify the number of hours in the statement. Alternatively, a minimum number of hours may suffice, if the time needs to fluctuate with the changing needs of the child, or their teachers, for support. Similarly, the child may need low-vision aids and information and communication technology equipment. As the child matures or curriculum requirements change, that provision might become out of date, in which case the specialist teacher, with the school, will identify more appropriate aids. I hope that that example enables the hon. Gentleman to see that there will be cases where it makes sense to be flexible about precisely how needs are specified in the statement.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister confirm that that example represents an exception, not the rule, and that there will be flexibility only in exceptional cases?

Stephen Timms: I can confirm that we would normally expect the quantification to be in the statement. So that there is no confusion on that point, I reiterate the comments made last week in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton: she pointed out that the word "normally" means that, in the majority of circumstances, we would expect to see provision in a statement quantified. In some circumstances there needs to be flexibility but normally we expect LEAs to quantify.
	It is clear from the wording in paragraphs 8:36 and 8:37 of the draft code that LEAs should normally quantify provision in statements, but that there will be cases where some flexibility is required. It is equally clear that decisions must be taken on an individual basis by a careful assessment of the individual child's difficulties and the educational setting in which the child may be taught.
	I have spoken first about quantification as it was the issue that most concerned the House, and I hope that I have provided reassurance on that point. However, changes have also been made that address other issues raised by hon. Members in July. First, the advice in chapter 7 of the draft code relating to children with medical needs clarifies that, where a child has medical needs that impact on his or her access to education, LEAs should consider whether there is a need for a statutory assessment by reference to the detailed guidance set out earlier in that chapter under four broad areas of need.
	Secondly, the advice on school placements in chapter 8 now makes it clear that school governing bodies cannot refuse their school being named in a child's statement, but can only argue against it. The changes that we have made to schedule 27 to the Education Act 1996 ensure that schools are always sent copies of proposed statements before decisions are made about placements. That will place LEAs, schools and parents in a better position to consider and discuss placements at an early stage.
	Thirdly, the draft code of practice and the associated regulations clarify that those who give advice can comment on the type of provision they consider appropriate if they wish, but they cannot, as now, give the name of a school. The draft code makes it clear that that should not, of course, pre-empt the parent's statement of a preference for a particular school or the LEA's eventual decision about the school, type of school or education otherwise that it considers appropriate.
	Issues were also raised in the earlier debate about the advice in the draft code of practice on LEAs' duties to identify children with special educational needs who may need statements. The draft code is clear on that. Indeed, it sets out new requirements for LEAs to publish their arrangements for identifying children with special educational needs from July 2002.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman refers to LEAs taking the decision and parents expressing a preference, but will he confirm that the LEA has the same obligation to take into account the preferences of the parents as it has in any case involving a parent whose child does not have special educational needs?

Stephen Timms: Certainly, the LEA needs to give great weight to the representations received from parents. I am not quite sure what specific point the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, but perhaps he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we can return to the issue later, when I may be able to help further.

Phil Willis: The issue should be dealt with the other way round. Will the Minister confirm that applications from students with statements of special educational need who transfer, for example, from year 6 to year 7 will be given preference over those of other children who may have selected a particular school as their first choice? In other words, is there an assumption that children with statements of special educational need will be necessarily given places in their first-choice school in preference to children without statements?

Stephen Timms: Yes, that is the case, although the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was right to suggest that LEAs will need to take a decision that follows parents' preferences—but perhaps we can explore that issue further during the debate.
	The draft code makes it clear that schools are expected to keep appropriate individual and whole-school records of children with special educational needs, including those with and without statements. Parents of children without statements have always been able to request assessments. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, schools will be able to request assessments and have their requests considered in the same six-week time scale as requests from parents. Educational psychologists regularly liaise with schools about children who receive school-based provision for their special educational needs and alert LEAs to any child who may need an assessment. In practice, LEAs can fulfil their duty without the need for additional bureaucratic burdens to be placed on schools.
	From January 2003, we will collect additional data, by LEA, on children with statements who are excluded from schools, so LEAs will know about those children. From September 2002, we shall ensure that any child who is excluded from school for 15 weeks will receive suitable full-time education. We expect LEAs to ensure that children with special educational needs who are excluded from school receive provision appropriate to their special educational needs.
	The current code of practice has done much to improve the identification and assessment of special educational needs, but it can be improved. Teachers and LEAs have told us that the current code is too bureaucratic, that it does not focus enough on teaching and learning and that it does not reflect recent important developments in education.
	We consulted widely on a draft code of practice last year, and most people favoured the main changes that we proposed, but further concerns were raised. We listened carefully to people's views on those issues and made a number of changes to the draft. In chapter 1, we have brought together the strategic planning functions of school governing bodies and local education authorities for SEN to make it easier for parents and others to know who is responsible for what.
	In chapter 2, we have provided fuller guidance for LEAs on the services that they are expected to provide to parents through parent-partnership services and the authorities' arrangements for resolving disagreements with schools and parents. The guidance also sets out minimum standards.
	In chapter 3, we have strengthened considerably the guidance on seeking and taking account of the views of children with SEN. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 now give stronger support for the role of the SEN co-ordinator in helping governing bodies and head teachers to raise the standards of achievement for children with SEN and to recognise their need for support within the school.
	The guidance on assessments in chapter 7 has been strengthened to clarify the terms on which LEAs should seek advice. It makes it clear that they should seek the views of the child, We have also enhanced chapter 8 on statements to highlight the accountability that schools and LEAs share for children with statements when funds are delegated.
	The draft code of practice is intended to remove barriers to participation and learning and to raise the attainment of all children. Its key principle—that children with SEN should have their needs met—reflects the Government's view that providing effective support for such children is an essential feature of an effective school.
	We support the greater emphasis in the draft code of practice on the early identification of children's SEN. Some £25 million will be available over three years to help LEAs and their early years development and child care partnerships to improve local provision for young children with SEN. A multi-agency working party will also develop guidance for health and education practitioners on a coherent approach to the early identification of need. It will provide support for children under two with special needs and for their families.

Roger Gale: The Minister mentioned a figure that was pitifully low. He is aware that many of us think that a doctrinaire attitude is taken towards the placement of children in mainstream schools. That means that they may get a worse education at a higher price. Kent county council has calculated that, as a result of these provisions, it is likely to be able to pay for the identification of needs, but not to fund the meeting of the needs themselves. How on earth will local authorities pay for that?

Stephen Timms: I shall come to the point about inclusion shortly. It is an important matter, but I am confident that the Government's approach is right.
	We support the greater emphasis on early identification. With the Department of Health, we are considering the educational implications of the introduction of newborn hearing screening where we are supporting a bank of training materials, activity in the next tranche of early excellence centres and support through SEN standards funds for 2002-03 to help early intervention. As children can have SEN at different stages of their school career—not just in their early years—the guidance in the draft code of practice on school-based intervention focuses less on procedures and more on improving teaching and learning.
	We have reduced the number of school-based elements from three to two and cut the paperwork on individual education plans and annual reviews to free up time for teachers to concentrate on helping children to learn. That will be widely welcomed.
	We have placed the voice of the child at the heart of draft code of practice. LEAs and schools are expected to seek and take account of the views and wishes of children with SEN throughout their school lives.
	Partnership with parents is given a fresh impetus and greater emphasis in the draft code, which makes it clear that the parent-partnership and disagreement resolution services that LEAs are expected to provide following the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 should be of high quality. They will, of course, in no way affect the rights of parents to appeal to the SEN tribunal.
	To come to the pointed raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), essential guidance on the key features of the new statutory framework for inclusion that was introduced by the 2001 Act is set out in the draft code of practice. However, we have also consulted teachers, governors, local education authorities, teacher associations, voluntary groups, parents and others on separate statutory guidance on the new arrangements for inclusion. Copies of this guidance have been placed in the Library and we aim to publish it alongside the revised SEN code of practice.
	The guidance provides practical advice on how the inclusion framework interacts with other provisions within the Education Act 1996; the reasonable steps that maintained schools and LEAs should consider taking to prevent inclusion from being incompatible with the efficient education of other children, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Thanet; instances when it may not be possible to include specific children; and the safeguards that protect the interests of individual children with special educational needs.
	Inclusion can certainly improve the education experience of all children, but we have always been clear that one size does not fit all and that there is a continuing and essential role for special schools in an inclusive education system. The essential principle of our inclusion policy is to safeguard the interests of all children.
	The hon. Member for North Thanet asked about resources. The principle is backed with substantial resources. Last week we announced an additional £9 million in the SEN standards fund for the coming year, taking the total available funds for SEN to £91 million. That will help to support training on the code of practice and give direct practical support to inclusion. Governing bodies can also, of course, deploy resources provided through a school's budget share to support additional training. The increase in the standards funds is only one part of a major investment in education in which we will have increased overall funding per pupil by nearly £750 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04.
	Hon. Members will appreciate that we have taken very seriously all the views that were put to us. We have acted on them and addressed them in the draft code of practice. I am pleased with the response to the revised proposals by those outside the House who follow such matters, and I commend the draft code to the House.

Eleanor Laing: A casual observer looking around the House at the peak time of 5.30 in the afternoon would think that we were discussing a peripheral issue of little consequence. We are not. The code of practice directly affects thousands of the most vulnerable among us, yet there are six interested Labour Members and the Minister and no interested Liberal Democrats other than the party's spokesman. Many of my colleagues are, of course, here because we have—

Stephen Pound: Count them!

Eleanor Laing: I cannot because they are behind me, but I know that there are far more Conservative Members present than Labour Members. [Interruption.] Proportionally, there are considerably more.
	As ever, it is not quantity that counts, but quality. As the Minister just admitted, it is the quality of our arguments on this extremely important subject of special educational needs that has prevailed. How could the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about consultation and listening when he has come here to do a huge U-turn?

Win Griffiths: Many Labour Members made the same points during the consultation process as those made by the Opposition and in the other place. It is the result of the total wisdom of all those who were interested that has brought about the changes.

Eleanor Laing: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman makes that point. I pay tribute to the Labour Members who were brave enough to defy their terrifying Chief Whip and stand up for what they, and we, believed was the correct approach. The Minister did not think that we were right, but he has now changed his mind. Like the hon. Gentleman, we are pleased that the Minister has presented yet another draft of the special educational needs code of practice.
	Sadly, it is typical of the Government to have tried to implement policy without having thought it through. I hope that the Minister will join me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who have shown the Minister the error of his ways and whose arguments he has accepted. He has been saved from making the wrong decision by their arguments and persistence. He and his Government owe them a debt of gratitude.
	It is typical that this Government have dogmatically stuck to their original position while ignoring the advice and views of many acknowledged experts on the subject—not Conservative Members but members of outside bodies who devote their lives to trying to improve the plight of children in need of special education, and who ought to have been listened to earlier.
	Implementing this code of practice soon is not the same as implementing a code of practice six months or a year ago; more children would have benefited if it had been implemented sooner. So, moving today's motion is not the same as accepting our arguments months or, indeed, years ago—or simply leaving alone the 1994 code of practice, which was implemented by the previous Government.
	It was hard to keep a straight face while watching the Minister. I compliment him on managing to do so while he spoke about consulting and how, from now on, the Government will consult on other matters in the area. I am sure that the Minister now realises that there is no point in consulting if, following the consultation procedure, everything that was said to the Government is totally ignored.
	It is a matter of record that the previous version of the code of practice was eventually laid before the House in June after nearly a year of dithering following its publication. On 10 July, a debate took place, in which the Minister ignored the comments of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has just pointed out, because of our system of deferred voting, about which I suppose I had better not make any particular criticism—hon. Members may well infer it—Labour Members were being whipped into the Lobby to vote for the code of practice at the very moment on 11 July that the Government were withdrawing the motion, just before it was to be put before the other place. We had the farce of Labour Members putting their crosses in the box, voting in favour of a code of practice that at that very moment was being withdrawn. To say that that is inconsistent is an understatement.

Damian Green: Joined-up government?

Eleanor Laing: It certainly is not joined-up government; the Minister does not know what he is doing. However, a sinner's repentance is always welcome. We welcome the withdrawal of the previous code of practice and the Minister's courage in coming before the House yet again on this subject to introduce a much better one.
	It is hard to understand why the previous Secretary of State was so keen to downgrade the need for specificity in the drafting of statements. We did not understand it then, nor do we now. Many of the organisations representing children with special educational needs have long fought to have statements written clearly, without any room for misrepresentation. That is the least that parents of children with special educational needs can reasonably expect. They deserve far better than a woolly, vague statement.
	We welcome the fact that the new code of practice requires that a statement contain details of hours of provision, staffing arrangements and any additional equipment that might be necessary. We supported those changes previously and we welcome them now. If only the Minister's colleagues were as brave as he has been in making a U-turn after listening to the better arguments voiced by my hon. Friends. However, I do not take credit for the changes solely for my hon. Friends; I take it for the many groups outside the place—including the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice—which argued that the Government were not doing their best for children in great need.
	The Government have realised that they were wrong. We are glad to see that they are now almost right. We will not oppose the code of practice, but I feel obliged to point out that it is still not perfect. The RNIB has pointed out that the code includes neither provision for mobility education for children with sight impairment, nor provisions on early detection of visual impairment. We share the RNIB's concerns: we agree that, to a child with impaired sight, mobility is as essential as language skills are to any other child. I will give way to the Minister if he would like to respond on that point.

Stephen Timms: indicated dissent

Eleanor Laing: No, the Minister does not wish to respond. Perhaps he will respond in writing later, or perhaps he will take the code of practice away again for redrafting and reintroduction at some future date—although I hasten to add that I do not encourage him to do that. We want the code of practice to pass now. Although we hope that further improvement will be made in future, we do not want to delay the implementation of the code any longer. The Government's dogmatic attitude has caused it to be delayed for long enough.

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous to the Government in applauding the changes to the code of practice. It is all very well to will the ends, but where are the means? I understood the Minister to say that there is to be £25 million over three years for early years provision, presumably spread between approximately 100 local education authorities. Where is the beef?

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. The Minister spoke, as he and his colleagues always do, in vague terms about funding per child throughout the country. He repeated an announcement that was made earlier this week about additional funding—but additional to what?
	It is hard to know what Ministers mean when they talk about additional funding, because we can never be sure how often they have already added in the chunk that they are talking about. The Minister explained that the money he mentioned at the end of his speech was in addition to another sum, and he admitted that it had previously been announced. I will give way to the Minister if he wants to provide clarification, but it appears that he does not want to intervene. If the money is additional, to what is it additional? How often has it been announced? Sometimes, we have difficulty interpreting the figures correctly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, because we can never be sure how many times an announcement has been made.
	As I said, we welcome the return to the principle of the clear and precise wording of statements in the 1994 code of practice. We are pleased that the Minister has come to the House to restore the specificity and quantification provisions, as it was vital to do so. Nevertheless, we still doubt the Government's commitment to special educational needs.

Win Griffiths: Shame.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has responded to what I am saying, but the Minister still has not. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman really thinks about the Government's commitment, he will join me in doubting it.
	I have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pritchard, whose daughter Claire needs special educational provision. They are just one example of many thousands of parents who are not certain about what will be done for their children, what they can rely on and what sort of plans they can make for their daughter and the rest of their family because they are not certain that they can trust the Government to do what they say they intend or hope to do for children with special educational needs.
	In my constituency, I regularly meet the head teacher of Oak View school, an excellent special school. He came to see me recently and explained that, although it is well known that the teacher shortage in our Essex area is critical in schools in general, the position for special schools is very much worse. He told me that a teacher in a special school in Loughton receives approximately £1,000 a year less than a similar teacher who works in outer London, only one mile way away. It is hard enough to recruit teachers to special schools without specific provisions that make it more difficult. Here is a case where teachers are suffering discrimination in the very area—SENs—where we desperately need to recruit them.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State's predecessor on 14 December 2000 about that important issue, but I have yet to receive a reply. How can anyone doubt my concern about the Government's commitment if the Secretary of State, in all these months, has not even replied to my letter?

Bill Wiggin: Nor mine.

Eleanor Laing: Nor, indeed, to my hon. Friend's letter. If the Secretary of State has not even responded to a simple question about salaries, how can the Minister doubt why I should be concerned about his commitment and that of his Government to special educational needs?
	Does the Minister know just how many special schools throughout the country are currently under threat of closure? Oak View school in my constituency is under threat of closure because of funding problems and the enormous bureaucracy heaped on it. How many more schools are in a similar position? I will happily give way to the Minister if he wants to respond. I understand why he does not want to respond when I ask how many schools—perhaps he does not have that information at his fingertips—but will he tell the House whether he has any plans for stopping special schools closing? He clearly does not want to respond. I understand that. I take it to mean that he has no plans.

Stephen O'Brien: On special needs schools, Brook Farm school in my constituency closed, despite a year's stay of execution following many appeals and representations to the former Minister. Its closure has added to the deep anxiety felt by parents of children who require special needs education. Not only have school places gone, necessitating longer journeys, but the introduction of the initial code caused great anxiety about certainty and quantification, particularly in respect of respite opportunities. For at least a year, and in my constituency for two years, parents and children have lived in a state of deep and unnecessary anxiety, because the situation was not handled by Government in a timely and more responsible manner.

Eleanor Laing: As usual, my hon. Friend is correct. Children in need of special education provision are not statistics. They are not numbers on a pie chart. They are individual people who are part of a family. Their parents have to plan not only for the children who are in need of special education provision, but for other children in the family. That is why they need to know the precise quantification of care that is to be provided, and why they need certainty for the future.
	The Government have not provided certainty. The Minister's presence in the House today to introduce a different code of practice from the one introduced only four months ago shows clearly that certainty has not been provided by the Government. It is not surprising that parents of children who attended the school described by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) are more than concerned. Of course they do not trust what the Government say, because the Government change their mind this way and that. If a Government can change their mind right in the middle of a vote that is still taking place on an order laid before the House, they can change their mind any time and in any way.
	If the Minister wants to show real commitment to special education needs, we will have to be convinced that he and his colleagues intend to provide the right funding for their plans, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said. They will have to convince us that their plans are consistent and that they will do what they say they will do.
	In this area more than any other—there are many, many others in which the Government say one thing and do another—we have a striking example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. On this occasion, we are pleased that they are doing what they said they would not do, as they are now doing the right thing. The Minister gestures as if he is confused by what I am saying. I am not confused. The people who are confused are the parents of children who require special educational provision. They are among the most vulnerable in our society. They should not be confused. They should be able to depend on the Government's word, and they should know that if the Minister says something in the House, he means it.

Stephen O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. She is making a powerful point. Our welcome for the Government's U-turn on the code does not diminish the unnecessary and untimely suffering and deep concern caused to families by the terms of the original draft order. They immediately recognised that it would throw into great uncertainty the care that they had already arranged. There was a deep suspicion that that was being done on financial grounds, rather than being motivated by concern for children and their needs.

Eleanor Laing: Once again, my hon. Friend is correct. Those parents have had more than a year of anxiety, not knowing what would happen to their children, what the Government would do, or whether the Government would listen to their concerns, as expressed by organisations such as the RNIB and IPSEA. At first, the Government did not listen, but now they have listened, at least in part. Parents have nothing on which to rely. That is wrong. Their children are among the most vulnerable people in our society and they deserve better.
	We accept the order. I am not calling on my hon. Friends to oppose it, but we hope that it will not be withdrawn again tomorrow.

Phil Willis: It was incredibly sad to hear the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) use her first major contribution at the Dispatch Box to deliver a party political attack on the Government on an issue of such importance and sensitivity. The fact that she had nothing whatever to say about some of the core issues relating to the code demonstrates the lack of integrity of an Opposition who have clearly not come to grips with the fact that unless—

Eleanor Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I will not give way. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] There is no doubt that, in respect of schools, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 was an important landmark on the journey towards a more inclusive society. The work of previous Conservative Governments on the matter dates back to the Education Act 1981—the first major education Act which introduced statements. Today's performance does a disservice to past Secretaries of State who did an enormous amount to establish inclusive education in our schools. Baroness Blatch needs a special mention for the work that she has done on the issue, together with my hon. Friends in both Houses.
	This morning, I accepted a cheque, presented by Abbey National, on behalf of Barnados, which operates a restaurant employing young adults with learning disabilities in Harrogate. Virtually half of the young trainees who work in that commercial restaurant have Down's syndrome. When I met them this morning, I was reminded of the comment made by Lord Rix in another place when the code of practice was debated. He mentioned that he had just spent a wonderful day with his grandson, who is a Down's syndrome child. Lord Rix, peers like him and others who have fought for an inclusive society will have their dreams brought one stage nearer. We hope that in years to come, Lord Rix's grandson will enjoy the fruits of the code of practice, if the Government implement it in its entirety.
	We welcome the U-turn by the Government, if that is what it is. There was a vicious attack on the Government in the House, and there would have been a similar attack in another place, over the code of practice that failed to include the quantity of resources attached to statements.
	When one looks back to 1981 and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, one sees that the great deficiency in special needs provision in schools was the quantifying of statements. Previous Governments did not achieve that. I worked in schools that pioneered inclusive education for children with physical difficulties, sensory impairments and severe learning difficulties. As a headmaster, I never had sufficient resources to deliver what parents, children and teachers needed. We should seek to move a stage further towards delivering that. I do not criticise previous Governments, who made noble efforts in that direction, but we must keep that constantly in mind.
	The code of practice does many good things. It is absolutely right to reduce from five to three the steps to be taken before statements are issued. I agree that there should be two steps for schools, and most schools will welcome more simplicity in respect of record keeping. However, Liberal Democrats particularly welcome placing parents at the heart of this issue and establishing, through local education authorities, proper parent panels and discussion forums to ensure that problems do not arise in the schools but are sorted out beforehand.
	The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made two interventions with which I absolutely agreed. The issue of parents is crucial. LEAs do not have sufficient resources to do what they are expected to do and they are now being given new responsibilities. How are they supposed to set up the new organisations under paragraph 2:17 and run them efficiently unless they have additional resources?

Roger Gale: As the hon. Gentleman has come thus far with me, perhaps he would come a little further. Does he agree that, given that we shall lose good special schools because of the doctrinaire approach that will force children into mainstream education, that mainstream education and support will be even more expensive, so we shall need even more resources?

Phil Willis: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to that point and meet him some of the way, but not all the way. I disagree with his premise that we shall see the end of special schools. The hon. Gentleman, who has a great deal of integrity in this area, will accept that the number of special schools that have closed in the past 10 years is extremely small. Virtually the same number of children are in special schools now as when he was a junior Minister in a previous Government. It is wrong to say that special schools are closing all the time.
	Let me deal with the key issue of resources. The Minister rightly said—indeed, the code of practice says so—that the whole issue of inclusion depends on schools themselves being inclusive. Making a school inclusive is a costly business. It is not simply a matter of providing resources for an individual child, or a few children, with special needs. Paragraph 6:2 of the code of practice clearly states:
	"All teachers are teachers of pupils with special educational needs."
	If inclusion is to work, it cannot be done on the cheap; it must be done with sufficient resources to enable schools to work as a community.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest was correct to say that the Government constantly reannounce funds. I have just looked at the £91 million that the Government have aggregated, which is about £4,000 per school. It is absolute nonsense to expect schools to put in place an inclusive SEN policy with that sum. The reason why so many teachers, heads and governors are fed up to the back teeth with an inclusion policy without the necessary resources is that, to deal with children with behavioural difficulties—an increasing number have severe behavioural difficulties—they need to train the whole staff. That is of paramount importance.
	A child who is partially sighted or has a severe hearing disability cannot simply be put into a class where a particular teacher or SEN co-ordinator has been trained; the whole staff need training in managing such children. That cannot be done on £4,000 per school. It needs a significant investment in training. Will the Minister press the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State to recognise that special education provision is at a crucial point? The code of practice can make a real difference, but we must have the necessary resources.
	Sadly, the code of practice scarcely mentions special schools, which are important. It is as if they simply offer a different route in meeting special educational needs. They do not. Special schools provide not just an alternative route but must be at the very centre in dealing with special needs children. Unless we regard special schools as centres of excellence, and resource and research centres, we shall make no progress. I hope that the Minister will encourage his colleagues to do that.
	The whole House is delighted that the Government changed their tune on quantifiable provision in paragraphs 8:35 to 8:39 of the code of practice. We do not want blanket policies, but LEAs were often forced to have blanket policies because they had meagre resources to apply to special needs. We want those policies to be specific, clear and detailed and we welcome the Minister's commitment in that respect, but Liberal Democrats do not accept that provision should "normally" be quantified, as stated in paragraph 8:37 of the code. I challenged the Minister to give an example and, to be fair to him, he gave the example of a visually impaired child whose needs would change. That is a cop-out. Provision should not normally be quantified; it should always be quantified. There is no reason whatever why a statement could not be altered to meet different needs during the year. In that way, the child and his needs, rather than the resource implications, would be central. I hope that the Minister will accept that and put in place ways of allowing those concerned to look carefully at statements that are not quantified under the code of practice.
	Will the Minister say in his summing up whether the new statements that are quantified will then be mandatory on the school and the LEA? If they are not, they are not worth the paper on which they are written. That is the crux of this debate. Once a statement is made that a child with speech problems, for instance, must have four hours' provision a week, who is liable if that is not delivered? Is it the school, the LEA or the Government?
	Where a child with a statement of special needs moves into the independent sector, as will increasingly happen as parents choose the provision for their child, do the resources that go with that provision move into the private sector with the child, or must the private sector seek those resources separately?
	There is a point of principle here, and that is the child. The parents may decide that they want a particular type of provision for their child, such as very small classes, which cannot be provided by the LEA. Given the additional resources needed to meet their statement, will that provision continue to be met in that area?
	We welcome the issue of identification. The code of practice goes a long way towards saying at early years, primary and secondary stages which conditions should apply for identification. That is a huge leap forward in thinking. I also welcome the announcement of hearing screening for newborns. The hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to screening carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. To have it written into the code that those two tests will be given to children at an early age will make a huge difference.
	Paragraph 1:29 of the code of practice refers to SEN co-ordinators in early years settings. In my constituency and many others, particularly rural ones, some of the settings are very small because of the size of the village. Indeed, many children are looked after by child minders. It is nonsense to think that a child minder would employ a SENCO, and I know that the Minister does not intend that to happen. The code says that they can join together and employ a SENCO. They cannot—most child minders and early years settings work at a loss. They do it because it is part of social giving in most communities. They are embarrassed even taking the minimum wage from parents. Will the Minister consider whether the early years and child care partnerships could be obliged to employ SENCOs to deal with small settings and child care placements? In that way, a professional person would be employed by the local education authority whose job it was to ensure that special needs provision was delivered at a local child-based level across all the early years settings. That is a legitimate job for the LEA. If the Minister wants to privatise the service and give it to someone else, that is his decision. However, this issue needs to be considered.
	The other area of weakness is special groups; the issue of excluded children is mentioned. However, a child is seven times more likely to be excluded from school if he has a statement of special needs than if he is within any other category. It is a huge problem. On the whole, children with behavioural difficulties such as autism and dyspraxia are the most affected. We must regard them as a special group. Along with local authorities and school settings, we must ensure that the infrastructure is in place to deal specifically with children who have behavioural difficulties. Travellers' children often have special needs that need to be met in a much more entrepreneurial way, and the same is true of immigrant children, particularly children of asylum seekers.
	We welcome much in the code of practice, such as the changes with regard to naming a specific school. We are delighted that schools cannot refuse to take children simply because they have special needs. That was not right, and it is good to see a change of heart. It is good, too, that there will be more discussions about the placement of a child between the LEA, parents and other professionals. However, at the heart of the code is what happens in school and the people who organise and work with children with special needs, particularly SENCOs. Paragraphs 5:33 and 6:36 make it clear that SENCOs should have more time. All Members who have asked a SENCO, "Do you have enough time to do the job?" will know that the answer is no. In some schools, the amount of time SENCOs have is derisory. I hope that the Minister will instruct Ofsted to ensure that when it inspects a school, those who provide the infrastructure to deliver special education needs have the time to do it. We have gone a long way in training SENCOs and professionalising the special needs provision, and we need to do it even more.
	There are two ways in which we could help schools immediately. First, there could be standard pro formas for individual education plans. The idea that all schools should devise their own is nonsense. I hope that model IEPs could be put on the internet or the website of the Department for Education and Skills. We should encourage such provision. Secondly, to enable schools, particularly large ones, to track all children with special needs—not just those with statements—needs sophisticated software. The Government can commission that on behalf of our schools.
	This is a major step forward. If the code of practice can have the necessary resources, the Government will go down in history as having taken a quantum leap for youngsters who are born without the advantages that many of us have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front-Bench speeches have taken 66 minutes out of the 90 available, leaving very little time for Back Benchers. I hope that those hon. Members will be mindful of each other's needs if all are to make a contribution.

John McDonnell: I was one of the Members who voted against the Government last time, solely on the basis of the wording of paragraph 8:37. Admittedly, it was one of the shortest rebellions in parliamentary history when it was withdrawn within two hours—a form of "codus interruptus", I suppose.
	I was concerned about quantification, and I remain anxious about the ability of local authorities to exert flexibility. The Minister's example was not reassuring because I should have thought that the change in circumstances would have been picked up at the annual review. The system proposed already covers that flexibility. However, I am open to persuasion.
	When the Minister replies, it would be worth while if he made an explicit statement that could be used by people in defending their rights if there were any possibility of flexibility being abused by local authorities. He could say that flexibility should not be used as a device for avoiding clarity of quantification of a pupil's needs and that any attempt to use it as such would be contrary to the spirit of the guidance.
	How will the Minister monitor the use of the flexibility? We have been assured that provision should normally be quantified, but I hope that the flexibility will be used only in very rare and exceptional cases, and that a report would be made to the House if it were believed that an abuse had occurred. That would require a monitoring system.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the chance to ask the Minister about the number of statemented children in Herefordshire. The current figure is 4 per cent. and I believe that it is due to be cut to 2 per cent. That is of particular concern to me because Wigmore primary school in my constituency has a special educational class with 12 places. It received a gold award from Ofsted for its excellent special educational needs teaching. Since then, I have been told that the number of places is due to be cut to six. That is awkward, because there are seven statemented children in the school. One full-time staff member is expected to go part-time. In a city that is understandable, but in a rural area close to the Welsh border, it is not practical. It means that that person will lose half their salary.
	The extra pupil may or may not be able to fit into the school, and the family are deeply concerned. Moreover, we cannot know how many statemented pupils there will be next year or, indeed, in the year after that, which is worrying. It seems that children with special educational needs are being forced into pigeonholes to suit policy enforced by the local education authority. Although the matter is still under consultation, the staff in question seem to believe that most of the decisions have already been made.
	I hope that the Minister will consider the problem in rural areas, where flexibility does not exist. I also hope that in a school whose excellence has been identified and praised by Ofsted, the present position will be preserved. I am worried by paragraph 1:14, which states that LEAs must
	"publish their general arrangements, including any plans setting out objectives, targets and timescales covering local arrangements for"—
	this is the last requirement in the paragraph, and I hope that the House will forgive the grammar, for which I am not responsible—
	"explaining that element of provision for children with SEN (but without statements) which the LEA expects normally to be met from maintained schools' budget shares and that element of such provision that the authority expects normally to be met from funds which it holds centrally."
	If the LEA explains that it cannot meet those special requirements because it has no funds, what will happen to children with special educational needs?

Andrew Turner: I first met a child suffering from autism during my second term as a probationary teacher. He had a learning support assistant and was in the fourth form, as we called it then.
	I had no idea what autism was; I was never told. I knew nothing about the child's needs. He was in, shall I say, a "lower order" class, which for a probationary teacher was not always the easiest environment in which to maintain discipline. It must also have been very difficult for him. Fortunately, that was a long time ago and things have moved on—partly, at least, thanks to my noble Friend Lady Young, who introduced and worked hard on provisions for pupils with SEN following the Warnock report.
	The Government's amendment to the code of practice is welcome—I say that unconditionally—but much work remains to be done. Local authorities must be persuaded to recognise and assist the parents of pupils with SEN. I owe a lot to Claire Franklin—one of the parents of autistic pupils on the Isle of Wight who contributes much to supporting others in the same position—and to Jimmy Spence, a former Isle of Wight councillor, who brought the issue to my attention two or three years ago. I also owe a lot to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has done much work for youngsters with autism spectrum disorders. She kindly visited the island, and met Claire and Jimmy and many other mothers and fathers of pupils with special needs.
	It is not enough to write things down. It is essential for local authorities, whatever their political complexion, to show a commitment—a genuine determination—to meet the requirements of SEN pupils. Let me a give a few examples. In doing so, I do not criticise my local authority particularly, nor do I make a political point.
	Mothers—it usually is mothers—with other children to look after may have to spend hours attending, say, a council meeting before they can even ask, in public question time, a question that frustration has driven them to go and ask, let alone receive an answer. If they get an answer, it will be read out rather less effectively than things are read out by the Minister. If they must then correspond at length with the local authority and receive no answers, they are not being given the treatment and support that they deserve from the authority.
	Such people may subsequently have to go to tribunals and seek support from IPSEA, the National Autistic Society or other outside organisations, in the face of a local authority funded from the public purse—whether or not it considers itself to be fully funded—that may employ solicitors. Many authorities employ solicitors to challenge parents at tribunals, although I am pleased to say that Isle of Wight council does not. If that happens, we are not giving parents the recognition and justice that they seek and need for their children.
	I shall concentrate on autism spectrum disorders, but local authorities simply do not seem to understand a huge number of issues. For example, such children cannot travel on a bus unaccompanied because they might get off and wander away—and, if they wander away between leaving home in the morning and arriving at school, who would be responsible? The same applies when children are on the way home. If conditions on the bus are not perfect for children with challenging needs such as autism—and they seldom are—such children will become upset, and be more likely to wander. If conditions in the school playground, let alone the classroom, are not perfect, children may go AWOL and no one may notice until the beginning of the next lesson or, in some cases, the one after that.
	Such things are not necessarily written down in statements. A local education authority may make a school responsible for providing a learning support assistant, but the school may not recognise that an autistic child needs constant encouragement from a figure whom he or she recognises. It is no good for such a child to have half an hour from Mrs. X in the morning and three hours from Mrs. Y in the afternoon. It is no good writing things down in a statement if the local authority or the school—or, in some instances, the health authority—cannot deliver. For instance, speech and language therapy are all too often specified in statements and then treated more as hope than expectation because the health service cannot provide them.
	I echo the request of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and ask the Minister to make clear who is legally liable. Is it the school, the LEA, the Government or, as I fear, no one? Who is liable if what is demanded in a statement is not provided, month after month?
	There are a number of issues relating to respite care, which I will not go into now, but there is also the issue of social services' support for parents of pupils with autism disorders, and for the youngsters themselves. Parents' preferences should be recognised. I thank the Minister for his reply to my earlier intervention. My point was that when a statement does not name a particular school, does the fact that a child has been statemented prevent the LEA from having to recognise and, wherever practicable, give effect to, the parents' preference for placement in a particular LEA school? I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am talking about cases in which the school has not been named. Are parents in such cases given genuine opportunities to consider independent schools, or are their hands tied behind their backs? Is it sometimes implied that considering an independent school implies a lack of faith in the maintained system, which does not deserve to be taken into account by the LEA?
	When children transfer from school to school—we have a three-tier system on the island, so there are two transfers for every child—is the review of their needs undertaken in good time not only for the transfer, but for parents to express a preference? If it is not undertaken in the September before transfer, the parent will not be able to express one.
	There is great need for those matters to be understood by local authorities and schools. That is why I so strongly support maintenance of the existing special school provision. I pay tribute to Medina House school and Watergate school, in Newport, and to St. Catherine's, which is an independent school in Ventnor, all of which very effectively serve pupils with special educational needs.
	The Minister mentioned, and I welcome, work on the early identification of need. However, it is no good identifying need if it then takes three years to create a statement. I hope that all local authorities and all those who cater for pupils with special needs will recognise the urgency of providing them with statements as quickly and effectively as possible, and with not only quantified measures—although I welcome those—but qualitative ones. Parents see the need for that, but we must all see it if those children are to receive the education that they deserve.

Stephen Timms: I listened with great interest to many of the points that have been made and shall attempt to respond to as many as I can in the few minutes available.
	Although I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is new to her Front-Bench role, I am sorry that she chose to attempt to score some party points. I do not think that that approach will commend itself to people of all parties or of none who follow the debate. Her attempt was ill-judged. I am glad, however, that some serious points were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I shall try to respond to them.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned a U-turn. In closing our debate in July, I emphasised that I would reflect on the points that had been made on quantification. We have made changes accordingly. I should have thought that she would welcome them, as she sort of did. Nevertheless, we have retained in this draft code almost all the advice that was included in the June draft.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I shall do so only briefly as I do not have much time to reply to the other points that have been made.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to clarify that I most certainly welcome the proposals and congratulate him on his courage in coming back to the House and making them.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention.
	I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, and I should like particularly to join in his tribute to Lord Rix. The hon. Gentleman has long followed the issue, and he has made a very substantial contribution not only in relation to education but to other aspects of the Government's work on the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members legitimately expressed concerns about funding for inclusion. I emphasise that we have made great progress on that front in recent years. In 1996–97, for example, funding for the schools access initiative, which is intended to improve accessibility for people with disabilities to mainstream schools, amounted to £10 million; this year, it amounts to £50 million; next year, it will increase to £70 million, and the year after to £100 million. The sums for investment in improving access to mainstream schools have increased very substantially. Furthermore, in 1996–97, the special educational needs element of the standards fund was £24 million; this year, it is £82 million.
	We are seeing unprecedented increases in spending on education not only this year, but next year and the year after. Moreover, a substantial chunk of those extra resources will be spent on meeting concerns that have been expressed in this debate. The total size of the inclusion block in the current financial year is £330 million, much of which is delegated to schools. So, although it is right to express concerns about resources in our debate, I emphasise that we have made great progress and that more progress will be made next year and the year after.
	The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was also concerned about funding for parent partnership and disagreement resolution services. We envision that those duties on local education authorities will, as intended, come into force on 1 January. In the current financial year, LEAs have been able to use their standards fund allocation for SEN to establish those services in advance of the legal obligation to do so. From next financial year, however, as they will be a statutory duty, funding will be provided using the usual SSA system. Given the increase that LEAs will receive next year, we hope that those duties will be carried out effectively.
	Various hon. Members expressed concerns about special schools. I emphasise that inclusion does not amount to a drive to close special schools. I thought that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made that point well. There will of course continue to be changes to local provision to reflect local circumstances. Those are decisions that will be made locally either by local school organisation committees or by the adjudicator, as has always been the case. However, as we made clear in the debates on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, we do not envisage that the size of the special school sector will change dramatically. The latest figures on pupil numbers support that belief. Indeed, 42 special schools have opened since May 1997. I therefore think that there is some confusion on that issue.

Eleanor Laing: What plans do the Government have to stop the closure of special schools that are under threat? Does he know how many are under threat of closure?

Stephen Timms: As I said, those are matters for local decision. There will undoubtedly have to be changes in some areas in response to local circumstances, just as there has been a need for new schools to be opened. Indeed, some new schools have opened.
	It is not true either that the code is written only for mainstream schools. It provides guidance for all maintained schools, including maintained special schools. We have encouraged all special schools to become centres of excellence, as we were urged to do in this debate. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to the example of Norfolk Park school, in Sheffield, which is highlighted in the inclusion guidance as a very good example of what he was calling for and of what we are starting to see.
	The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked about the status of statements and whether they are mandatory. The answer is that they are mandatory. If a statement is not delivered, the LEA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the provision in a statement is made. I hope that that makes the position very clear.

Chris Pond: That may not apply to under-fives. One of my younger constituents, Francesca Norman, is entitled to five sessions per week but is being provided with only three by Kent county council. Can my hon. Friend give any hope to the parents of under-fives that their children will have the same entitlement as other children?

Stephen Timms: Certainly the concern about the early identification of special educational needs is an increasingly important theme. Consequently, we have announced extra funding to help LEAs in their early years development and child care partnerships to improve local provision for young children, and we have a working party joining different agencies together to develop guidance for health and education practitioners on a coherent approach to the early identification of needs and the provision of support. I certainly should expect my hon. Friend's constituent and many other people to start to benefit from that. In response to his specific question, the code does apply to under-fives.

Roger Gale: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I cannot give way, given the late stage of the debate. I was asked what we were doing about special educational needs co-ordinators—
	It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
	Question agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.

Liaison Committee

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion on the Liaison Committee, I should announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Robin Cook: I beg to move,
	That,
	(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of Select Committees), the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees listed in paragraph (2) below shall be a member of the Liaison Committee;
	(2) The Committees to which paragraph (1) above applies are:
	Accommodation and Works
	Administration
	Broadcasting
	Catering
	Culture, Media and Sport
	Defence
	Deregulation and Regulatory Reform
	Education and Skills
	Environmental Audit
	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	European Scrutiny
	Finance and Services
	Foreign Affairs
	Health
	Home Affairs
	Joint Committee on Human Rights (the Chairman being a Member of this House)
	Information
	International Development
	Northern Ireland Affairs
	Procedure
	Public Accounts
	Public Administration
	Science and Technology
	Scottish Affairs
	Selection
	Standards and Privileges
	Statutory Instruments
	Trade and Industry
	Transport, Local Government and the Regions
	Treasury
	Welsh Affairs
	Work and Pensions; and
	(3) Mr. Alan Williams shall also be a Member of the Liaison Committee.
	I need not detain the House for long because I imagine—I hope not wrongly—that it is common ground across the House that we want the Liaison Committee set up, and that is the purpose of the motion. Only a couple of weeks ago, I received a letter signed by many of the Chairs of the new Select Committees urging us to make progress in setting up the Liaison Committee. I responded to that in the motion that is before the House.
	For myself, I did not need urging to set up the Liaison Committee. I am keen to see it in existence soon. One of the reasons for that is that the Modernisation Committee is making good progress towards a report to the House on Select Committees and their valuable role in scrutiny. Obviously, we cannot hope to complete that report until we have a Liaison Committee from which we can take evidence on our proposals.
	Perhaps I can say a couple of words about the terms of the motion. First, the motion takes the form of listing the 32 Select Committees that are relevant to the Liaison Committee and stating that the Chairs of those Select Committees will be members of the Liaison Committee.

Eric Forth: For the sake of complete accuracy, will the Leader of the House confirm that, happily, the motion refers to
	"the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees"?
	Would he perhaps like to use the correct wording instead of the nonsense that he has just used?

Ronnie Campbell: Nonsense?

Robin Cook: As my hon. Friend demonstrates, there are different views on whether it is I or the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who is being nonsensical on this matter. It is a matter of fact that the Standing Orders refer to Chairmen, and that is why the motion before the House uses that term. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will use a gender-neutral term that I have been using for several years, on the whole without causing the offence that it has caused the right hon. Gentleman.

Eric Forth: It caused derision.

Robin Cook: Given the choice between offending some of my hon. Friends who are members of another gender and causing offence to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no contest; it has to be the right hon. Gentleman whom I offend.
	To return to the matter of substance, the motion takes a different form in the sense that it lists the Chairs, rather than the names of individuals. Had I tabled a motion that listed those eligible by name, there would have been further delay because two Select Committee do not yet exist, so I do not yet have the names of their Chairs. Had we proceeded differently, we would have had to find time to amend the motion as the Chairs changed. We had to amend the 1997 motion four times during the Session because of changes in personnel. The particular format that we have tonight does not require any such change. If there are changes in the Chairs of Select Committees, there will automatically be changes in the Liaison Committee without our having to trouble the House further.
	The motion proposes to include in the membership of the Liaison Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). There is a precedent for appointing a senior Member to the Liaison Committee. In 1992, the previous Administration appointed Sir Terence Higgins to the Liaison Committee. So successful was that precedent that, at the end of the Parliament, and before the 1997 general election, the Liaison Committee recommended that, in future, it should include a senior Member.
	I do not think that there is any dispute on either side of the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West is a senior Member. He has given distinguished service to the House and to its senior Committees. He is a longstanding member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and he also served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. He has a wealth of experience of the proceedings of the House and the work of its Committees. It is right that that experience should be available to the Liaison Committee to be drawn on in whatever way it wishes.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have indicated that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment to the motion. I have had no overtures about the amendment, which is perfectly respectable; there is no reason why any overtures should be made to me on the completion of the tabling of an amendment. However, in the circumstances, I will want to hear the case for the amendment before I respond to it.
	I hope that the House will not be sidetracked from the central issue. We need this motion to set up the Liaison Committee. We moved quickly after the general election to set up the Select Committees; indeed, they were set up in record time. Tonight's motion maintains that momentum.

David Heath: The Leader of the House said that he was listing the Committees by name because two had yet to be set up. Given that he has just described the welcome momentum towards setting up the Committees, can he explain why the Committee on Science and Technology has yet to be appointed?

Robin Cook: The sole reason is that we have been looking for nominations to make sure that we have full membership. I hope that, in the course of this week, we may be able to take that forward. I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that we will make progress as soon as we can because I want a full slate of Select Committees.
	As I said, the motion is necessary if we are to have the Liaison Committee. We are all agreed that we need the Liaison Committee and we all want the Committee to be set up. I hope that the House will agree to the motion tonight.

Eric Forth: I very much welcome the motion and join the Leader of the House in recognising the vital role that the Liaison Committee plays in the proceedings of the House. I accept completely the point—an important one for the smooth running of our affairs—that the motion should be worded as it is, referring to Chairmen of Select Committees, both departmental and domestic, rather than named individuals, because that eases our procedures in an acceptable way.
	There is a paradox in the motion, but it emphasises that the Liaison Committee traditionally has been composed of the Chairmen of the Select Committees, departmental and domestic. That is well understood by members of the House, and those who wish to envisage a greater role for the Liaison Committee are content with that. That much is common ground.
	Having said that, neither my colleagues nor I have any difficulty with the suggestion that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) be made a member of the Liaison Committee, for the reasons that the Leader of the House has given. The right hon. Gentleman, whom I know well and respect greatly, brings to the House, and will bring to the Committee, experience and wisdom that are well appreciated. However, were the right hon. Gentleman to be thought eligible to be the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—I should have thought that that was a distinct possibility—it would raise the question whether such a position should be filled by a Government or an Opposition Back Bencher.
	It may be that, in the wider consideration of the role of the Liaison Committee and of Select Committees generally, that sort of issue may be pondered in the future. I am not saying that it will necessarily affect immediate decisions, and I am not in any way seeking to interfere with or influence the decisions of the Liaison Committee. However, something that has bothered me for some time about the role of Select Committees is that they have tended historically to be dominated by Government Members. That is something to which the House may wish to return at some stage.
	Having said that, I must confess that I am less happy with the idea contained within the amendment; that we start appointing other additional members to the Liaison Committee, apparently on an ad hominem basis. Whatever the virtues of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—I have no doubt that they are many—I cannot avoid stating a fact into which I hope hon. Members will not read too much. The extent to which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West has enormous experience and knowledge of this House is clear; he has been a Government Minister and has served with great distinction on Select Committees. The same can hardly be said of the hon. Gentleman referred to in the amendment. Like the Leader of the House, I am waiting with bated breath to hear from Liberal Democrat Members the reasons for the amendment and why they believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam would add lustre to the Liaison Committee. I remain to be convinced about that.
	I may take some convincing. We have been on solid ground until now in acknowledging that the Liaison Committee will consist of Select Committee Chairmen and, for the reasons given, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. However, if we create a precedent by adding other members willy nilly, we could be at the top of the legendary slippery slope or at the thin end of the legendary wedge. That could lead us in directions that none of us can foresee. I fear that the influence and standing of the Liaison Committee could thus be diluted. I put it no more strongly than that.
	I welcome the motion and its reference to Chairmen rather than named hon. Members. I am content with the suggested addition of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, but I have yet to be convinced about any other changes to the traditional shape and structure of the Committee.

Paul Tyler: I beg to move as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph (3), leave out
	"shall also be a Member"
	and insert
	"and Mr. Richard Allan shall also be Members".
	I join hon. Members in welcoming the fact that we are making progress on appointing members of the Liaison Committee. However, perhaps the Leader of the House would like to comment on the time scale. It is curious that we are examining the role of the Liaison Committee in our discussions in the Modernisation Committee, yet we are appointing the members of the former without completing our review. That seems to be the way we tend to do things in Parliament: we appoint people before deciding the role that they should play.
	The Committee is large and in due course we shall probably consider whether the departmental Select Committees are properly represented when they are diluted to some extent by Domestic Committees.
	I welcome the flexibility that is implicit in the nomination of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I endorse the words of the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the capacity and skills that he will bring to the Committee. He has considerable experience; I have served with him on Select Committees and I respect his judgment.
	However, the precedent to which the Leader of the House referred is not precise. Sir Terence Higgins had previously been a Chairman; he returned to the Liaison Committee because of the need for continuity. A good case was made at the time and his appointment was worth while. However, that precedent does not apply in the case that we are considering. Although I greatly admire the right hon. Member for Swansea, West, I have heard the suspicion expressed in Labour circles that his appointment is a consolation prize for not getting something else. That is unfortunate, and I hope that the Leader of the House will dispel that rumour.

John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman is not exactly right. Sir Terence was Chairman of a Special Select Committee that was set up for one Parliament and died with it.

Paul Tyler: That underlines my point that Sir Terence's special skills from previous experience were believed to be desirable.
	There are two good reasons for the amendment, which is not the thin end of a slippery slope, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst appeared to suggest. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) chaired the Information Committee with distinction and special expertise in the previous Parliament. Continuity of the work of that Committee affects every aspect of the work of the House. His expertise and experience recommended him as a good addition to the Liaison Committee.

Eric Forth: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is revealing one of his reasons for tabling the amendment. However, the knowledge and expertise of the current Chairman of the Information Committee is legendary, and he will be a member of the Liaison Committee. Why do we need two e-people on the Committee? Is not one expert enough?

Paul Tyler: That is a matter for the House. I share the view of those who are more expert than the right hon. Gentleman in such matters. He declares himself a philistine and has frequently expressed doubts about whether we should spend any time or resources on the e-revolution.
	There is a better precedent for the inclusion of my hon. Friend rather than for the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West on the Committee—the need for continuity. My hon. Friend served not only on the Information Committee but on House Committees that dealt with such matters.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the inclusion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on the Committee is justified by his previous chairmanship of a Select Committee and the need for continuity. Is the hon. Gentleman implying that every former Select Committee chairman would qualify on the same ground? How would he manage the size of the Committee?

Paul Tyler: The House will have to decide the matter. Failure to consult about additional members of the Liaison Committee has caused anxiety about the criteria on the basis of which they can be included. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) nods. When we heard that the reason for the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was the precedent of Sir Terence Higgins, we believed that we had a good case for proposing my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam.
	However, we have a second good reason. As the Leader of the House said, the Liaison Committee will have 32 members. The arithmetic of the House should be used as a guide to ensure a proper balance on every Committee. There is only one Liberal Democrat Member on the Liaison Committee because of a neat little carve-up between the Whips Offices of the Conservative and Labour parties and the removal of one of our Chairmen from a Committee.
	To enable the House to do what it must do under Standing Orders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has said, we should maintain proportionality and ensure continuity of experience, thus following the precedent created by Sir Terence Higgins.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) gave some convoluted reasoning for adding another Liberal Democrat to the Committee. He ultimately reached the real reason for the amendment—to bump up the number of Liberal Democrats on Select Committees. The Liberal Democrats are already over-represented on Select Committees, whereas the minority parties, or the smaller parties, as I would describe them, are under-represented.

Andrew Turner: Other parties.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right; the other parties are under-represented on Select Committees. I am not making a pitch for a member of Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National party or any other party to serve on the Committee. However, if it grows much larger, we shall certainly be entitled to a member on it.
	In the discussions that take place in the dark or through the usual channels, the Liberal Democrats supposedly represent the interests of the other parties. On this occasion, and some others, that has not happened. We were not consulted—

Archy Kirkwood: Neither were we.

Simon Thomas: Indeed, but we were not consulted about whether we would wish to put forward an alternative name for the Liaison Committee.
	The Committee should be set up speedily, because it is important for the modernisation of the House. We must accept, however, that a precedent—small though it is—has been set by the appointment of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), however undoubted his virtues. This debate should open the eyes of all hon. Members to the reality of the way in which Select Committee membership is allocated; who is chosen by the byzantine means of the Committee of Selection; and who speaks up for whom in the selection of members and of the Chairs who then form the Liaison Committee. Those procedures should be brought into the open and changed so that all Members, from all parties, feel that they have a share and a stake in the House's work.

Andrew Stunell: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, and I have made similar points behind the scenes since I became the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. The minority parties and the Liberal Democrats face considerable difficulties because of the method by which the places on Select Committees are decided. Those are on top of the difficulties that all hon. Members perceive when the nominations reach the Committee of Selection. The House instructed the Modernisation Committee to make proposals to put that right and I hope that it will soon do so, because the present situation imposes an unfair burden on those who have to adjudicate such matters—and on this occasion and in relation to Select Committees, that is me.
	The minority parties are also disadvantaged, because they are not directly represented on the Committee of Selection. I have made that point explicitly on every occasion when it has been necessary. All I can say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion is that his party is not treated unfairly in mathematical terms. The dispute between his party and the Liberal Democrats is not the mathematics, but the actual selection of individual Select Committee memberships. Unavoidably, political choices have to be made under the current mechanism. I agree with his concerns about the present system and I want the House to reform it, but the amendment attempts to address a different fault in the system.
	When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was taken off the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the House was able to insist that the Government reconsider the decision. The hon. Lady was put back on the Committee, and the decision was made through the Committee of Selection, which is answerable to the House. However, the decision on which party should offer a Chairman for a Select Committee is not the responsibility of the Committee of Selection, and it cannot be recalled or rectified by the House. Whatever problems were caused by the Committee's decision in June, the issue today is currently beyond the reach of even the Committee, never mind the whole House.
	The Liaison Committee has 32 members and the Government seek to add another. Of those 33 members, one will be a Liberal Democrat and none—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out—will come from the minority parties. The House must wake up to the democratic deficit at the centre of its workings. I do not mean the elected dictatorships about which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has written his book, and I am not talking about whether the Prime Minister has too much power. My point is whether the House has the appropriate sense of fairness and urgency to put right its procedures by the simple but crucial step of ensuring that the Liaison Committee reflects the views and opinions in the House.
	I remind the House that we expect the Liaison Committee to be a senior representative body for Back Benchers. Indeed, the Committee's report to the House has been a landmark in the House's fight to assert its rights over the Executive, and it has been much quoted. It came from a Liaison Committee whose legitimacy depends on it being seen as representative and able to balance the views of hon. Members. If the legitimacy of the Committee is to be upheld in this Parliament, it needs to take more account in its membership of the outlook, experiences and perspectives of those Members of Parliament who have been denied a reasonable share of its membership.
	The amendment would not advance the case I am making. If my case were accepted, there would be four places on the Liaison Committee for the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties. However, the amendment would at least prevent the position from being worse than it was in the last Parliament. We had two representatives on the Liaison Committee in that Parliament, but it is now down to one. Our amendment would simply restore the position to two members, as in the last Parliament.
	I urge the House to support the amendment, not only for the sake of the Liberal Democrats and minority Members and not even on behalf of Opposition Back Benchers, but for the sake of the Liaison Committee itself and the role that it seeks to play on behalf of the House. I urge the House to support the amendment because it would be for the benefit of the whole House.

Robin Cook: In responding to the debate, I shall not intrude on the private debate between the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, however enjoyable it was for the rest of us. I would say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that I hope that the Modernisation Committee's report will propose making the departmental Select Committees marginally larger, because that will do much to resolve the problem that the hon. Gentleman identified.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his support for the terms of the motion. Between us, we have made a modest step towards modernisation this evening and I hope that the future holds many further such steps. He raised the question of whether the Chair of the Liaison Committee should be a Government supporter. For what it is worth, all the precedents support that. Sir Terence Higgins was the Chair of the Committee through two Parliaments when the Conservatives were in office and Lord Sheldon was the Chair in the last Parliament. However, it would be wrong for us to start to weigh up the relative merits of a potential Chair of the Committee by considering whether he or she is a supporter of the Government. The important question is whether we have found a senior Member with an independent cast of mind, and I am confident that that is what the Liaison Committee will look for.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) expressed some concern about the size of the Committee. That seemed rather at tension with his argument that those who were Chairs of Committees in the previous Parliament should also be members in this Parliament. That could increase its membership to more than 50, rather than 30, so I am not persuaded on that count.
	If I may just mildly raise an eyebrow, I was a bit upset to be accused of offering a place to a distinguished colleague as a consolation prize. If any offer of a consolation prize was being made, it sounded to me as though it came from the Liberal Democrat Benches, not from this Dispatch Box.
	Nevertheless, I take on board the point that on the basis of the present chairmanships of Select Committees—I seek consensus on this—the Liberal Democrats would be left with only one member of the Liaison Committee. It is important that we do not start to think of the Liaison Committee as one of those Committees to which we appoint Members pro rata, by representation in the House. Strictly speaking, the Liberal Democrats would be entitled to four members on that basis, but I would not accept that as a case for changing the composition of the Committee. However, I recognise that to drop from two to one is an unkind thrust when the membership of the House has not changed for the Liberal Democrats. I am keen to maximise support for the motion. Therefore, in a spirit of ensuring the maximum support, I am willing to accept the amendment.
	I hope that that will not cause too much distress to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is not at any cost to his party, which will continue to retain all the members who were on the Committee at the start of this debate. I hope that on that basis we can all agree to set up the Committee.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That,
	(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of Select Committees), the Chairman for the time being of each of the Select Committees listed in paragraph (2) below shall be a member of the Liaison Committee;
	(2) The Committees to which paragraph (1) above applies are:
	Accommodation and Works
	Administration
	Broadcasting
	Catering
	Culture, Media and Sport
	Defence
	Deregulation and Regulatory Reform
	Education and Skills
	Environmental Audit
	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	European Scrutiny
	Finance and Services
	Foreign Affairs
	Health
	Home Affairs
	Joint Committee on Human Rights (the Chairman being a Member of this House)
	Information
	International Development
	Northern Ireland Affairs
	Procedure
	Public Accounts
	Public Administration
	Science and Technology
	Scottish Affairs
	Selection
	Standards and Privileges
	Statutory Instruments
	Trade and Industry
	Transport, Local Government and the Regions
	Treasury
	Welsh Affairs
	Work and Pensions; and
	(3) Mr. Alan Williams and Mr. Richard Allan shall also be Members of the Liaison Committee.

COMMITTEES

Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions.
	Ordered,

Administration

That Julie Morgan be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr. Iain Luke be added to the Committee.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

That Mr. Paul Stinchcombe be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Paddy Tipping be added to the Committee.

International Development

That Mr. Nigel Jones be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Alistair Carmichael be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Public Accounts

That Mr. Nick Gibb be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Environmental Audit

That Tim Loughton be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr. Gregory Barker be added to the Committee.

Standards and Privileges

That Tony Baldry and Mr. David Chidgey be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Richard Ottaway and Mr. David Heath be added to the Committee.

Modernisation of the House of Commons

That Mrs. Angela Browning be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. John Taylor be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kemp.]

AVIATION INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

John McDonnell: Because of the nature of this debate and the wide-ranging interest, other hon. Members may wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would welcome the exercise of your discretion to enable that to take place because of the scale of the problem that we are dealing with.
	Heathrow airport is the national centre of the United Kingdom's aviation industry and is located in my constituency. I have sought the debate to discuss the current crisis in the aviation industry. I do not wish to be alarmist, but I do not use the term "crisis" lightly.
	Prior to 11 September, the aviation industry, airport operators and all the associated companies were experiencing a cyclical downturn associated with the overall downturn of the world economy, especially the American market. That was nothing unusual. We have been through downturns before. To use an appropriate expression, we expected a soft landing when the downturn bottomed out, after which the markets would begin to pick up again.
	Prior to 11 September, several firms had announced a tightening of their belts and associated voluntary redundancies. Again, it was nothing that we had not experienced before. The aim was to get through the downturn with the least pain possible and to prepare for the upturn in demand, estimated to occur within about 12 months. September 11 and the horrific attack on the World Trade Centre changed all that.
	The pre-existing downturn was exacerbated dramatically by the terrorist attack. A predictable fall in demand, the impact of which was generally assessed as lasting 12 months and which was thought manageable, was immediately transformed into a crisis of significant proportions for those working in the aviation industry and for communities heavily dependent on airport operations, including communities in my constituency and others located around Heathrow.
	I run through just some of the public announcements that have been made since 11 September by airport operators and the aviation industry which will result in job losses. Since 11 September, British Airways has announced that 5,200 jobs are to go, on top of the 1,800 previously announced due to the economic slow-down. Virgin has recently announced 1,200 redundancies. British Midland, which has a lower exposure to the transatlantic impact, is nevertheless grounding eight aircraft and cutting 600 jobs.
	European airlines have been similarly affected. Swissair has filed for bankruptcy. Lufthansa has cut one United States route, grounded four aircraft and shelved orders for new aircraft. KLM has cut capacity by 5 per cent. Alitalia has cut staff by 12 per cent. Aer Lingus has cut scheduled services by 25 per cent. Austrian Airlines has cut capacity by 10 per cent. Air France has removed 17 aircraft from service and Sabena has filed for bankruptcy.
	United States airlines have been hit equally hard, if not more so. United Airlines has announced 20,000 job losses worldwide and a 20 per cent. cut in flight schedules. American Airlines has laid off at least 20,000 employees in order to survive and reduced capacity by 15 per cent. Continental Airlines will lay off 12,000 employees. Northwest Airlines has cut 10,000 jobs.
	Aircraft manufacturers are also feeling the impact of 11 September. Boeing has announced cuts in jobs of 20,000 to 30,000. The impact on passenger traffic through Heathrow has been around 20 per cent. Air traffic control has experienced a 20 per cent. reduction in support staff, as was announced recently: initially, it was announced that 1,100 jobs would go, but over the weekend we read that that could go up to 2,000.

Martin Salter: Does not my hon. Friend recall that many of us who were extremely unhappy at the proposed part-privatisation of National Air Traffic Services received assurances that it would not lead to cuts in the standard of service, nor indeed, in the support infrastructure upon which air traffic controllers depend? Given the cataclysmic events of 11 September, the contraction in the industry, the decision recently announced by the Government to put on hold the second Scottish air traffic control centre, and that a number of the airlines that he listed that are making substantial job cuts are members of the Airline Group, the consortium that is the Government's strategic partner, does he not think that now is an excellent time for Ministers to show the same pragmatism and realism towards NATS that they showed towards Railtrack, before it is too late?

John McDonnell: I fully concur with my hon. Friend's views. The NATS privatised business plan is now unworkable. It is time to rethink the whole proposal and introduce the trust option that was put forward by me and my hon. Friend in the debate on the privatisation of NATS. In fact, the trust route is being used for Railtrack itself.

Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way, although he has some time at his disposal. If it is right and proper—I believe that it is—for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to say that there is an essential contradiction between the interests of the travelling public and the interests of the shareholders vis-à-vis what was formerly Railtrack—that botched and barmy privatisation as we have called it—does not the same logic apply to the very service that we depend upon to ensure that aircraft are kept apart and that the travelling public can continue to use the airline industry with confidence and safety?

John McDonnell: There is a need for consistency from the Government on transport overall, and that consistency must apply to air traffic. In the current difficult circumstances for the aviation industry, we could do without the problems associated with air traffic control and the inherent dangers of the system that has been proposed. I agree that there should be a complete rethink; we should go back to the drawing board and reconsider the trust option.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that NATS was to have funded its business plan with investment of £1 billion, but that because of the problems of the airline partners that funding will almost certainly no longer be forthcoming? Will not the Government have to rethink the whole NATS privatisation plan?

John McDonnell: A rethink of the overall proposal is inevitable. We are not talking only of future investment but of future solvency: that is my main concern. The job losses already announced and future possible job losses will put the whole system at risk.
	The announcements that I listed are based on staff lay-offs—often worldwide—throughout the companies involved. However, because Heathrow airport is a focus for the operations of many of those companies, a significant proportion of the job losses will fall on Heathrow and its communities. Even the job losses announced by European and American airlines will have a major impact at Heathrow, because most of those companies maintain substantial operations at the airport.
	The impact is being felt not only by the airline operators but throughout the lengthy supply chain of the aviation industry. It is estimated that about 180,000 people are directly employed in the aviation industry, but that about 200,000 people work in its immediate supply chain, providing goods and services to the industry. Evidence is appearing that depicts the impact of the combination of the already existing downturn and 11 September on the multitude of supply firms. Orders are not coming through, bookings are falling and telephones no longer ring in offices with the usual demand for service delivery. Many of those firms are small and are those that employ the lowest-paid staff. Such companies are least able to provide reasonable redundancy packages and support measures for staff leaving their employment.
	A large proportion of the staff affected by the current crisis—especially the lower-paid staff—live in the communities surrounding Heathrow airport. According to figures published last year, direct employment at Heathrow is about 68,000. For every person directly employed at the airport, it is estimated that there are three in the supply chain. Eighty per cent. of the workers directly employed at Heathrow live in the surrounding local authority areas, putting about £2 billion into the local economy. More than 25,000 directly employed workers live in the three immediate boroughs of Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow.
	There is a paradox in that although the development of a massive airport such as Heathrow brings with it the advantage of large-scale employment, it also has the disadvantage of increasing demand for land, thereby raising land prices and providing other sectors of industry with an incentive to sell their sites and move to cheaper locations, thus squeezing out those sectors. Local economies have become heavily dependent on Heathrow so when the aviation industry catches a cold, our communities risk pneumonia.

Martin Salter: Will my hon. Friend share with the House his view as to the effect of this dramatic decline in the industry on the plans for Heathrow terminal 5? Those plans have given rise to some controversy across the whole Thames valley.

John McDonnell: There is an argument that the current problems might bring the terminal into existence more swiftly. I would argue that we should stand back and consider the future demand for a fifth terminal, and that we should adopt a more planned approach to aviation development in the south-east. For example, there is a proposal to develop Marinair, rather than building a fifth terminal. That would give us greater long-term capacity as well as some breathing space. However, I await the announcement about terminal 5 and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will not want to comment on that issue tonight.
	I have lived in my community for more than 25 years, representing it on the Greater London council and in Parliament. I went through the three recessions under the previous Conservative Government and witnessed the effects of unemployment on my community. That Government's commitment to market-oriented, non- interventionist policies meant that they failed to act to assist my community during that period. We lost most of our manufacturing base, and only after four years of Labour Government are we beginning to get back on our feet. That is why I am asking—pleading—for an interventionist approach from the Government.
	It has been suggested that the current problems faced by the aviation industry will be as temporary as those experienced during the Gulf war or in previous downturns. I differ strongly from that view. The fact that civilian aircraft were used as a weapon in the 11 September attack and that the present war is predicated on a long-haul approach to tackling terrorism means, in the view of many people, that the current recession in the industry will be deeper and longer lasting. In that situation, the Government cannot stand back or fail to intervene.
	Today at Heathrow, I convened a meeting with the airport community partners—the airport operators, the British Airports Authority, trade unions, community leaders and local MPs—and the Minister for Transport. We held a useful discussion and agreed to form an airport community task group to prepare a programme—an agenda—for a co-ordinated approach to tackle the recession that faces us, considering short and long-term measures to address the crisis.
	The proposals include, first, support for individuals. We want to establish a form of early-warning system to predict the announcement of lay-offs. We want to provide a co-ordinated system of advice and assistance on issues such as welfare benefits, redundancy payments, retraining and employment opportunities for those workers threatened with unemployment as a result of the crisis. We want to bring together local advice agencies, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Employment Service to provide that facility for people threatened with, or experiencing, the loss of their job.
	We want to consider advice and assistance for alternative employment through the Employment Service, which has already established an initiative as a result of previous crises in other industries. That could be valuable in our area.
	We want to examine how to set up retraining options through the Learning and Skills Council, working with local colleges and training agencies to ensure the reskilling of people who will be displaced from their existing jobs. Some of them may return to the aviation industry, but we want to make sure that they have updated skills, thus giving them greater employability.
	Secondly, we considered support for the industry itself—for the companies. We are concerned about the additional costs that they are bearing as a result of the crisis and examined several measures to assist them. That is not a soft option; it is not backing losers: it is about finding short-term support to help to tide us over the current crisis. Some of the proposals included the following: to extend
	"at no cost to the industry the period in which Her Majesty's Government acts as insurer of last resort from 30 to a minimum of 180 days";
	to secure
	"rapid agreement from other governments to achieve a uniform worldwide limit on third party liability and the corresponding insurance indemnification requirements";
	to provide
	"allowable financial assistance for tour operators"—
	and airline companies—
	"to cover the exceptional costs incurred and revenues lost as a direct result of the four day closure of North American and other affected airspace";
	and to ensure
	"that airlines do not incur additional costs in meeting the enhanced security".
	The protection of the public demands assistance from the Government to ensure the highest levels of security.
	Another proposal was for a promotional programme to get people flying again—to renew their confidence in the aviation industry. Historically, flying is the safest form of travel and we should remind people of that, and that we are working together to ensure that it continues to be so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the issue of confidence, which is extremely important in encouraging people to travel by air. As we are losing a great deal of transatlantic business, our airlines—among all the European airlines—are particularly badly hit, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British and American Governments must do all they can to work together? In that connection, does he endorse the fact that the French have come up with a bilateral agreement with the United States—whereas our Government have still not been able to do so? Does he agree that we should put every possible effort into concluding such a bilateral agreement?

John McDonnell: Those at this morning's meeting argued that there should be a level playing field across Europe and the United States and that those negotiations should continue apace. I believe that Ministers are visiting America this week to hold discussions to enable that to happen.
	Several of company and trade union representatives at the meeting made the point that George Bush's Administration has sunk £6 billion of support into the airline operators to ensure that they get through this period. We shall look for some form of assistance—again, on a selective basis and in response to real need—to get through this crisis.
	Security and the restoration of confidence were critical to our discussions. There have been continued security lapses at some of our airports, which we do not want to highlight too much because, in general, the security is good, but there is still a need to tighten it up. We must be firm with those companies that avoid their responsibilities by allowing unvetted staff to operate air-side and, as was said this morning, by preventing their staff from discussing security problems with the inspectors.
	The third issue discussed was support for the communities affected by the aviation crisis, because it was felt that we need to reappraise existing regeneration initiatives to take account of the latest situation. For example, many of the single regeneration budget programmes around Heathrow will end in the next 18 months. Community leaders argued this morning that additional funds are needed to support regeneration initiatives, for example, training, retraining, new enterprise promotion and development in the airport community areas.
	The fact that the SRB is running out at a critical time, just as our communities need it, is unfortunate, so there is a need to examine whether additional resources can be provided, possibly through the central pool that the Mayor of London will hold at the end of the SRB period. However, because of competing demands on that central pool, there is an argument that additional resources should come from the Treasury direct to London to help us to tackle the current problems.
	The other issue raised in this morning's discussion was the problem that local authorities around Heathrow have in bidding for additional funds under other regeneration schemes. The problem is that with high levels of employment around Heathrow, the local authorities do not necessarily score well in the deprivation indices because unemployment has a great influence on those indices. However, those indices do not take into account the quality of employment, so we may have high levels of employment, but, unfortunately, there are also high levels of low pay. The deprivation indices must be reshaped to ensure that moneys are awarded according to the quality of life of the local people in those communities.
	We felt that all those matters should be open to negotiation with central Government to reflect the current crisis. We want the work of the existing agencies, such as the London development agency and the Learning and Skills Council, to be co-ordinated to assist in the short term and to consider the longer-term problems, so that we can rebalance our local economies to avoid overdependence on the airport if a further downturn occurs.
	The long-term solutions were the fourth issue discussed. Obviously, there is a strong argument for continued investment in the infrastructure to keep ahead in such a competitive market. Apart from terminal 5, crossrail was also mentioned as one of the key projects needed to keep Heathrow at the forefront of the world's aviation industry. However, all the operators recognised that the airport must be a good neighbour to its surrounding communities and that the environmental impact of such measures should be addressed.
	As a result of this morning's discussions, we have agreed that we will convene the task group and aim to submit a briefing paper to Ministers, including those at the Treasury, within weeks. There is a real sense of urgency about the matter. We aim to identify a programme of readily available and implementable measures for the Government. We want to work together to get our own communities through the current crisis and to return to the stable economic climate that we have experienced in recent years.
	Heathrow is the logistical centre for this country; it is also a logistical centre for Europe and for the world. We must not allow the current crisis to undermine its pre-eminence in that role. On Thursday, the Transport and General Workers Union will lobby the House. Many workers from Heathrow will come here to express their concerns about the threat to their livelihoods. We need to give them a clear view that we appreciate their concerns and will stand by them, so that we can see them through the current crisis.

John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my constituency neighbour, not only on obtaining this debate but on managing to ensure, by good fortune, that we have more time than the half an hour normally permitted on many of these occasions, which has allowed other hon. Members to contribute.
	My constituency borders Heathrow, and many of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has outlined affect my constituency, especially in the southern half around West Drayton and Yiewsley. However, as he said, such issues do not just affect the aviation industry; there is a huge knock-on effect locally—for example, on the hotels and some of the other service industries in the area. I declare an interest: I am still a director of retail outlet in Uxbridge, so I know that consumer confidence is also affected. A new shopping centre has opened in Uxbridge, and the viability of such developments is also dependent on the confidence of the local economy. I am pleased to report that consumer confidence is holding up in the pre-Christmas rush.
	Without repeating too much of what the hon. Gentleman said, there is another knock-on effect. Many of the local organisations connected with the airport—in particular, the British Airports Authority and British Airways—contribute to the local economy by being involved in voluntary schemes, such as the Hillingdon Partnership Trust. When they begin to feel the pinch, there will be a knock-on effect on many of our community projects.
	One or two controversial issues have cropped up at the same time as the crisis in the aviation industry. The ruling on night flights will put some hon. Members in a difficult position. Although we advocate help for the aviation industry and want people to have confidence, we are pleased that the ruling might, if the Government take it on board, provide relief for many of our constituents. However, we have to consider the economic effect that that will have on the airlines.
	I should also like to echo the comments made about NATS, because those services must be reconsidered in the light of recent events.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the TGWU's lobby on Thursday this week, and I am pleased to say that it has been very active—I was even accosted at half-term at the excellent match between Uxbridge and Cirencester Town. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will be delighted to know that that match ended in a three-all draw, with the replay tomorrow. A great deal of local concern has been expressed about the impact of all the job losses and their effect on people's perception of the local economy.
	As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we have been very lucky in many respects. We have felt the benefits of the airport, but, as he said, we have put all our eggs in one basket. Now that that basket has been severely rattled, we are very concerned that, as he said so eloquently, when the aviation industry sneezes, we shall end up with pneumonia. That view is widely held in the local area.
	Our overarching desire is to try to ensure that our aviation industry has a level playing field, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred. I should also like to congratulate him on convening the meeting that he mentioned and the Minister for Transport for agreeing to be involved with the taskforce. I am sorry that I could not attend this morning because of previous engagements, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on acting quickly.
	The TGWU is looking for other measures, and I am sure that the Treasury has its own ideas, as, I suspect, has the shadow Treasury team. The TGWU is looking for an immediate freeze on air passenger duty and, particularly, for compensation for the lost four days in the immediate aftermath of 11 September when many flights did not take off. A great deal of money was lost.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to security, and I agree that the issue must be considered. There will be additional security costs and the aviation industry and the airlines, in particular, might find them to be what might be described as a burden. Although we all want further security measures to be introduced, they will create extra costs at a time when airlines' income is falling.
	The hon. Gentleman and I might slightly disagree about terminal 5. I think that an early statement would restore local confidence in the airline industry. I have strong environmental concerns, but the construction of the terminal might provide opportunities that would benefit the local economy. We have had many discussions on that point in the past, and I accept that we might have to agree to differ on it.
	It is not my job or that of anyone in the House to tell businesses how to run their enterprises, but it is interesting to note that some airlines have not suffered the same impact recently. I understand that the transatlantic routes of airlines such as British Airways are a particular problem, but I wonder whether the airlines have been as quick in promoting confidence in air travel as they might have been. Perhaps they could have been a bit more generous in discounting flights in the way that some of the low-cost airlines have done. Those airlines have been quick off the mark and that fact has been reflected in their figures.
	I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the continuation of the regeneration budgets. Perhaps we could extend the single regeneration budget beyond the next 18 months or we could look to the Mayor of London for help. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are constantly told that we are in for a long haul and that might mean that the aviation industry will not emerge from its current problems as quickly as we would like.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to crossrail, and we have always accepted the need to be good neighbours. The aviation industry provides jobs even though some of them are low paid. Therefore, if we expect it to be a good neighbour to our constituents, it is beholden on our communities to be good neighbours to the industry in times of trouble. Even the people who are not directly affected by job losses in the industry recognise that we need to ensure that the local economy does not suffer the consequences that some of us fear that it might. I therefore urge the Minister to consult his colleagues to ensure that the problems that I have described are tackled urgently.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The House knows that I am used to being adaptable. Within days of my appointment to the Opposition Front-Bench team, I was shuffled from my responsibilities for matters involving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to those relating to the DLTR. However, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have advised me that I should not speak from the Front Bench in this debate because it might create a precedent even in these exceptional circumstances. I am therefore delighted to take part from the Back Benches in the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
	The debate is timely, and the hon. Gentleman covered the issues in a measured and constructive tone. The last thing that anyone would want to do is exacerbate the situation by causing further alarm. Unless we can instil confidence in the general public that they should continue to travel by air, the terrorists will, in a sense, have won. We therefore need to move forward in a constructive fashion.
	The hon. Gentleman described many of the lay-offs that have taken place and I do not want to add to the list. However, they are a sign of the pressure that has been put on the airline industry—I use the term in its widest sense—since 11 September. However, the problems do not all result from then; a certain amount of restructuring was due to happen in any case.
	It is not all bad news. For example, this evening's Evening Standard reports that Ryanair has just announced increased profits. They have risen by 30 per cent. to 102 million euros in the six months ending in September compared with analysts' expectations of 89 million euros. In addition, revenues were up by 29 per cent. The newspaper quotes Ryanair's chief executive, Mr. O'Leary. Describing his rivals, he said:
	"'Many have used the events of 11 September as an excuse to cover their continuing losses but they were loss making well before then and will continue to be so.'
	He praised European Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palacio for 'doing a fine job' preventing 'basket cases' from receiving more State aid."
	That may sound pejorative, but Ryanair has shown that there is still hope in the airline industry.
	Ryanair is talking about purchasing more second-hand planes. The Evening Standard reports:
	"It is also talking to owners of 600 second-hand 737s as well as planemaker Boeing about buying 50 more aircraft."
	There is some good news about, and we want to spread it. Anything that the Government can do to encourage the future of the airline industry would be welcome.
	I strongly echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I hope that there will be an announcement on terminal 5 very shortly and that, when it comes, it will not follow the precedents that the Government have set recently. I hope that a full statement will be made to the House before the press is informed, so that we may play a full part in scrutinising the announcement first. Will the Minister take that point on board? I know that there has been controversy about terminal 5, but the industry will gain confidence if it knows where it is going.
	The infrastructure of London's airports has been mentioned. The number of job losses at Heathrow is likely to be substantial, but the Government could consider a number of options. Last week in Westminster Hall, I made the point that we need to consider the infrastructure used for travelling between London's airports. There is still a poor service between the two major airports of Heathrow and Gatwick, but surely we could consider providing fast rail systems or improving the M25 so that bus travel is quicker and more predictable.
	In Westminster Hall, attention was drawn to the Thameslink rail link between Luton and King's Cross. I travelled on it recently and it is still a relatively poor service. It stops at every little station when we want a high-speed rail link between King's Cross and Luton. In fact, as on the link between Paddington and Heathrow, one should be able to check in one's baggage at King's Cross. Even in the current security situation, the ability to check in baggage could be used at more of the terminals that link central London with major London airports, and in respect of links between airports. That would make travel easier for people changing from domestic to international flights.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the NATS privatisation programme. The debate on that will have to be reopened in light of today's uncertain circumstances. We need to be clear about the direction that our airspace control is taking. If the second planned airspace terminal at Prestwick is not going ahead—the Minister is shaking his head—he needs to explain where the investment for Prestwick and West Drayton is coming from and where he expects it to go. As I said, if the £1 billion investment from the consortiums is not forthcoming, where will the money come from to fund those two improvements? We need to know that fairly shortly.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Government's role as insurer of last resort. They could provide stability for the industry. The first offer to be insurer of last resort was only a day or two away from running out when the Government announced that they would pay the premiums for another 30 days. We need to know the Government's plans. They should not leave it until the day when the arrangement runs out. Let us try to provide certainty.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we should extend the period from 30 days to 180. As I have no technical expertise, I do not know whether that is right, but it seems to me that a longer period would be of great benefit to the industry. Unless there is another terrorist outbreak, I do not think that that would be too expensive. If there is another terrorist outbreak, they will spend a lot more on unemployment benefit and so on. It would surely pay to keep some stability in the industry, and that is one way of doing it.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned negotiating with the European Union on what specific help can be provided when the single regeneration bid ends, because that is causing uncertainty. Conversations with the relevant directorates general in the EU on what could be done to the state aid rules in such exceptional circumstances would pay dividends. There is a significant threat of job lay-offs, and a number of jobs have already gone. The Government could talk to the EU about that.
	While the Government are finding out what can be provided for the airline industry, they should consider targeted help for security measures. We know that they are receiving more than £1 billion in airport passenger levy. The Government have increased the rate and are now bringing in that substantial sum. Although that is going into the general Treasury coffers, it would be wrong in such exceptional circumstances for the cost of increased security measures to fall on an individual airline. Carefully targeted measures would be helpful. Again, I do not think that that would be too expensive.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's eminently sensible initiative to bring everyone together in a taskforce, especially members of the TGWU. I was not aware that it was going to lobby the House on Thursday, and the debate is timely. Many of its members must be apprehensive. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to see what can be done to ensure that as many jobs are preserved as possible and to bring all Government agencies together to decide what can be done to help people who are going to lose their jobs. I was especially impressed with the hon. Gentleman's idea about the Learning and Skills Council. That is a positive initiative to retrain people who lose their jobs, perhaps to re-enter the industry with new qualifications and skills when it revives and expands.
	I do not want to detain the House. The Minister can do a great deal to reassure the industry. That would be tremendously helpful. We all need to chart a way through the crisis so that we shorten the recession as much as possible. Every measure will help, including talking to the European and American authorities. We know from tonight's Evening Standard that British Airways is about to drop out of the FTSE 100, which is a serious development. Its profits and share price have plunged. No one wants that. We all want it to recover quickly. One reason why it has taken such a dive is that of all European airlines, it is one of the most dependent on the transatlantic trade. Anything that the Government can do, including concluding a bilateral agreement, would be beneficial.

David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing the debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important subject. I thank him for making so many vital points, and for the calm and measured way in which he raised them on behalf of his constituents.
	I want to respond in full to many of my hon. Friend's concerns, but I shall deal first with the comments made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I am glad that consumer confidence is still high in Uxbridge. I am sure that the good people there are delighted to have a Labour Government who have enabled that to be the case. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of important issues, which I shall address.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is temporarily on the Back Benches. I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench again. He said that he had been assigned to the DLTR; I think he meant the DTLR—the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is my Department, and I hope that he is shadow spokesman for it. The hon. Gentleman made the important point, which needs to be made, that some airlines are doing well. Tonight we are discussing some of the industry's problems, however.
	The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long for an announcement on terminal 5, but I cannot tell him what it will contain. He also mentioned National Air Traffic Services, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who has a long history of raising that subject. We have not received a request for financial assistance from NATS. We have agreed only a pause in the building programme at the Scottish centre, which we had to do following the events of 11 September. We are firmly committed to the two-centre strategy.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that, when we finally have an announcement on terminal 5, it will be made first to this House and not to the media?

David Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this House will be fore-informed of any announcement that we make.
	The Government recognise the great importance of the aviation industry to the United Kingdom economy and are therefore paying close attention to the industry's current problems, as so well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. We acted quickly in response to the events of 11 September to counteract the failure in the aviation insurance industry market and to enhance security measures at all UK airports. We are actively considering the payment of emergency aid to airlines for the four days when United States airspace was closed, in accordance with European Commission guidelines.
	In addition to those practical measures, we are doing what we can to restore confidence in air travel. For example, last week I undertook a programme of visits to UK airports—I went to Gatwick, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Bristol, and a few weeks earlier I had visited Plymouth airport—to help boost morale and encourage consumer confidence in air travel. I pay tribute to people who in recent weeks have worked extremely hard in many of our airports to ensure that they are even safer than before. I know that many of those people have worked under enormous stress and pressure in recent weeks. I give credit to them, especially my hon. Friend's constituents.
	Some 180,000 people in the United Kingdom are employed in the aviation industry—an industry with a gross domestic product similar to that of car manufacturing—with up to three times as many jobs supported indirectly. Moreover, the UK aerospace industry employs around 154,000 people, contributing almost 1 per cent. of GDP. Aviation is particularly important to local economies around major airports. As my hon. Friend said, Heathrow airport accounts directly for 68,000 jobs and is by far the biggest employer on a single site in London.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport was able this morning to meet my hon. Friend, fellow Members and representatives of the air transport industry, trade unions and local communities to discuss the situation of Heathrow airport and its surrounding areas. I understand that the discussion was constructive and wide ranging, and that those present agreed to engage in a regular exchange of information on the state of the industry during this difficult period. I also understand that the employment market in the areas surrounding Heathrow is holding up well at present, but it is obviously important that all concerned should be in a position to react quickly to any deterioration in the situation. I take particular note of my hon. Friend's comments about low pay in his area.
	My hon. Friend talked about the task group of the airport's community partners that is being set up, and I was pleased to hear that. As he rightly says, there needs to be a programme for a co-ordinated approach. I certainly look forward to receiving the briefing paper from that group. I know that the Department for Education and Skills is involved and that the Employment Service will be actively involved. I assure my hon. Friend that Departments and particularly the Employment Service will be giving every support to people who may be facing redundancy. I suppose that one good point is that the economy is doing well, and we should be thankful for that, but that is probably small comfort to people who may be losing their jobs in the weeks ahead.
	There can be no doubt that the aviation industry has suffered a body-blow as a result of the terrorist attacks of 11 September. Not only was air transport chosen as the instrument of terror in those attacks, but the industry has become the most prominent casualty in the subsequent economic fallout. The International Air Transport Association has predicted a collective industry loss of £7 billion for 2001. Many are saying that the effects will be worse than those experienced following the Gulf war. It is clearly too early to tell precisely how badly the effects will be or how long they will last, but traffic figures published by the Association of European Airlines for the five weeks up to 14 October showed that the north Atlantic market was down by about one third compared with the same period last year, while European traffic was down by about 10 per cent.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that the American Government made available selective aid of $15 billion to their industry. Will he confirm that he is urgently talking to his European Commission counterparts to see what selective state aid either the EU or the British Government might be able to give to our airline industry?

David Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman—we made this point the other day in a similar debate in Westminster Hall—that we are having, have had and are still having active discussions with our European Community partners. He will know that the matter is within European Union competence. We are certainly considering how we can ensure that our industry is not disadvantaged.
	We must put the crisis into context. European and charter traffic has been less badly affected—I certainly found that when visiting airports around the country—and the low-cost sector continues to register very strong passenger growth. The wider economic picture is far from gloomy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that he is "cautiously optimistic" about the future, with UK interest rates and inflation low, and public finances stable. Nevertheless, we appreciate the fact that scheduled long-haul carriers are facing genuine difficulties. I am aware that British Airways has only today announced a 25 per cent. fall in traffic for October compared with the previous year.
	The current uncertainties inevitably translate into lost jobs throughout the aviation industry and in the service industries supporting it. Most of the main UK airlines have already announced redundancies. British Airways, for example, has announced that it will shed 7,000 jobs. I know that airlines are making every effort to achieve those cuts by voluntary means, but each lost job can be and will be a personal tragedy affecting families and communities in areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency.
	It is important to point out that the aviation industry was, by common consensus, in trouble before the events of 11 September, which was due primarily to the economic downturn and high fuel costs. The European industry in particular has long been overdue for restructuring. For example, it cannot make sense for 17 European carriers to offer scheduled services across the Atlantic, against only seven US carriers. The problems experienced by many European flight carriers stem from long before 11 September, although clearly those events have compounded the problems.
	Nevertheless, following the attacks in the United States, the industry has had to face new problems. Initially, US airspace was closed for four days. Then there was the decision by the insurance market to limit its exposure to future terrorist attacks by withdrawing third party war risks cover—a decision that threatened to ground the entire industry. Circumstances dictated that security measures needed to be tightened, and the response of a significant proportion of the travelling public was also predictable—they cancelled their reservations or simply declined to book.
	Despite the Government's long-standing policy not to intervene in the aviation market, such exceptional circumstances clearly warranted Government action. The Government took immediate steps to counteract the failure in the insurance market. Within a few days and before the imminent withdrawal of cover had grounded the entire UK fleet, we made available to our airlines and related industry the necessary third party war risks cover. Indeed, so quick off the mark were we and so effective was the remedy that we devised that our lead has been widely followed throughout the world. Although initially for one month, the coverage has recently been extended to 23 November. We shall, of course, reconsider that during our discussions with the airlines, but it might be somewhat premature to extend coverage now in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Cotswold. The situation unfolds further daily and we have to consider our policies on the same basis.
	Despite the few deplorable lapses that have been reported in the past few weeks, standards of security in the UK before 11 September were among the highest in the world. During my recent visits to airports, I have seen the extremely high standards of both pre-existing security measures and the enhanced measures implemented since 11 September. Nevertheless, we have enhanced security measures at all UK airports and for airlines leaving this country. In addition, we are carrying out a fundamental review of aviation security to ensure that air travel is as safe from terrorist attacks as we can make it, while at the same time balancing security with our freedom to travel. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington welcomes BAA's estimate that 150 extra security staff will be needed at Heathrow. I understand that the response to advertisements placed in the local press has been good.
	Aid to airlines is controlled by the European Community, which has exclusive competence for monitoring state aid that distorts or threatens to distort competition in so far as it affects trade between member states. The European Commission acted quickly to address the repercussions of the terrorist attacks for the air transport industry. It issued a communication which reiterates that member states must not depart from Community rules on state aid, but sets out how the Commission will interpret the rules in the current situation. The extra costs of security, losses directly attributable to the closure of US airspace and the provision by Governments of insurance cover are identified as areas where state aid would be justifiable. The Government are currently considering whether further aid to UK airlines should be made available, taking those guidelines into account.
	On 16 October, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Minister for Transport attended the Transport Council in Brussels. They strongly supported the Commission's view that it would not be in the industry's long-term interests to bail out individual airlines that are, by any objective measure, no longer viable. UK airlines have always performed well when they have been able to compete on fair terms in the marketplace. My right hon. Friends made clear our disapproval of proposals by some member states to distort the market by propping up their flag carriers with inappropriate state aid.
	UK Ministers also took the opportunity to promote our views on restructuring the industry. We consider it vital that the repercussions of 11 September act as a spur rather than a brake to airline consolidation, but it is not for Governments to engineer consolidation. That is for the airlines, acting on their own commercial judgment, whereas it is our duty to ensure that the regulatory framework facilitates change. One of the obstacles to intra-European Union airline mergers is the attitude of prospective third-country bilateral partners. Strict adherence to outdated ownership and control restrictions on the part of other countries might seriously impede the consolidation that we in Europe need. Looking to the future, we have a successful base on which to build.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the phenomenal growth in the number of air passengers in the past 10 years has been the real-terms decrease in air fares? Will he be vigilant against excessive consolidation in Europe, which might result in competition becoming less intense than it has been in recent years and the fall in air fares being reversed? A real-terms increase in fares would be an additional deterrent to air travel.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that air travel costs have fallen in real terms. It is also true that people have more money in their pockets: our economy and, by and large, the economies of other European countries are doing well, so more people are travelling. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must ensure that there is proper competition in the market.
	The UK has a wide range of quality airlines, including a very successful no-frills sector. That is underpinned by some of the most successful airports in the world: Heathrow serves more international passengers than any other airport in the world, with Gatwick sixth on that list. It is impressive to note that travellers to and from the UK account for 25 per cent. of all international air travellers. We want that success story to continue. Some will say that in the current circumstances, it is all a question of survival, not expansion, and that might be true in the short term, but I am confident that the industry is resilient enough to secure future growth.
	The Government remain committed to addressing the long-term future of UK aviation. We have a manifesto commitment to publish a new White Paper next year: in it, we intend to set out our plans on aviation and airports for 30 years ahead, and that work continues with energy. Over a 30-year period there are bound to be severe shocks to the industry—the past 30 years has seen its share of such shocks, whether as a result of terrorist action or of increases in the price of oil, but, despite that, world aviation has grown continuously during that period, with declines proving to be but temporary.
	Governments around the world will be doing their best to ensure that any pause in economic growth is as small and as short as possible. Our long-term forecasts are based on trends driven largely by growth in national and world GDP, and we are confident that demand for air travel will eventually come back into line with long-term forecasts. Our aim therefore remains to produce a White Paper that provides a framework for the sustainable development of aviation and airports in the UK. It will attempt to balance the social, environmental and economic impacts of the industry while remaining consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
	The UK has long been a world leader in aviation, and despite the current difficulties it will remain so. The prognosis for UK aviation is very encouraging, albeit that the current economic difficulties may have wrought permanent changes in the industry. I look to the future with confidence and foresee a stronger European aviation industry, with the UK maintaining its vanguard position.
	I am pleased to have been able to set the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington in a broader context tonight. The Government understand the special difficulties facing his constituency; we understand, too, that trade unions and others will be concerned about job losses in the area. However, I assure him that the Government are doing everything we can in difficult and somewhat unpredictable circumstances to ensure that the problems do not last long, and that the situation does not become permanent. I hope that we will in future be able to have a debate in which we can agree that the fortunes of the people in his constituency and of Heathrow have risen as we expect them to.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eight o'clock.